Article Archive: Current 1999 2000 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics
Surface Forces: U.S. Mandates Nuclear Battleships
   Next Article → RUSSIA: What Goes Around, Comes Around

December 24, 2007: The U.S. Navy has been ordered, by Congress, to use nuclear power in its new class of cruisers (the CG-21s). That should not be a problem, as the CG-21 is currently planned to be about 14,000 tons. But depending on the size of the nuclear power plant for the cruiser (one based on those used for nuclear subs, or the larger ones found in nuclear aircraft carriers), the CGN-21 might be a more conventional, 25,000 ton, design. The new destroyer (DD-21) has a stealthy superstructure, and is as big as a battleship, at least a battleship of a century ago, The new 14,000 tons design, is 600 feet long and 79 feet wide. A crew of 150 sailors will operate a variety of weapons, including two 155mm guns, two 40mm automatic cannon for close in defense, 80 Vertical Launch Tubes (containing either anti-ship, cruise or anti-aircraft missiles), six torpedo tubes, a helicopter and three helicopter UAVs. The CGN-21 would drop one of the 155mm guns and the torpedo tubes, but carry more vertical cells for missiles (especially anti-ballistic missile missiles).

 

A century ago, a Mississippi class battleship displaced 14,400 tons, was 382 feet long and 77 feet wide. A crew of 800 operated a variety of weapons, including four 12 inch, eight 8 inch, eight 7 inch twelve 3 inch, twelve 47mm and four 37mm guns, plus four 7.62mm machine-guns. There were also four torpedo tubes. The Mississippi had a top speed of 31 kilometers an hour, versus 54 for DD-21. But the Mississippi had one thing DD-21 lacked, armor. Along the side there was a belt of 9 inch armor, and the main turrets had 12 inch thick armor. The Mississippi had radio, but the DD-21 has radio, GPS, sonar, radar and electronic warfare equipment.

 

Adjusted for inflation, the century old Mississippi class ships cost about half a billion dollars (adjusted for inflation). The new CGN-21 cruisers will cost about $3 billion each, thus possessing the price, and size, if not the name, of a battleship.

 

 

Next Article → RUSSIA: What Goes Around, Comes Around
  

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6   NEXT
Bob Roberts       12/24/2007 12:38:04 PM
The chance of one of these being built is probably as likely as me winning the lottery.  This sounds like an even larger version of the strike cruiser from the late 70s.
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    At 25,000 tonnes....    12/24/2007 12:53:27 PM
................That thing better have a particle beam cannon on it, or I am going to be one irate taxpayer!

Herald
 
Quote    Reply

RockyMTNClimber    DDX v. CGX v. BNX   12/24/2007 2:30:49 PM
 
I start here by saying how very incredibly nervous I am that we are about to build a Olifantus Maximus-nus Blanco. The DDX already looks and costs like a heavy missile cruiser to my taxpayer sensibilities. Why do we need a bigger ship? What vessel is going to out missile or gun the DDX in the near future? Going nuclear seems okay to me because the initial costs will be offset by the long term cost of operations. When operating at high tempos having our DDX platforms free from fuel requirements makes good sense.
 
Using the DDX as our cruiser and developing a smaller ship to fill the destroyer niche makes more sense than going bigger and bigger. I don't think we are likely to successfully fund a bigger platform anyway and we might end up with no next generation of either Cruiser or Destroyer because of budget restraints.
 
Check Six
 
Rocky
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

doggtag       12/24/2007 2:39:54 PM
Since when the 40mm guns?
 
I always read it would use two 57mm guns (US-produced version of the Bofors All Target Gun),
with the issue of sharing commonality with the LCS (would've used it as the primary deck gun).
 
And removing the torpedo tubes altogether?
I see that as doubtful, since I don't see the USN being so foolish as to require the CG-X needs escorts to perform ASW, or must rely soley on helos to do it (although I won't raise the issue if some of those VLS cells will utilize VL Asrocs).
 
A particle beam weapon on a 25,000 ton hull, Herald?
For all that electrical power potential, why not a caterpillar drive (MHD), do away with the propellors altogether?
 
Maybe the USN can dig through its archives on all the EM spectrum research it's done in years past, and maybe actually come up with the first effective shipborne EM shield while we're at it?
(providing that doesn't make it more susceptible to magnetically-influenced mines and torpedoes...)
 
...think of the CG-X then as SeaQuest DSV that stays on the surface all the time...?
 
Quote    Reply

ASL       12/24/2007 3:32:04 PM
So, what the title meant to say is: "U.S. Mandates Nuclear Cruisers, which the Navy may or may not do, depending on how feasible it really is, because Congress shouldn't dable in ship building"
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345       12/24/2007 11:21:47 PM

Since when the 40mm guns?

 

I always read it would use two 57mm guns (US-produced version of the Bofors All Target Gun),

with the issue of sharing commonality with the LCS (would've used it as the primary deck gun).

 

And removing the torpedo tubes altogether?

I see that as doubtful, since I don't see the USN being so foolish as to require the CG-X needs escorts to perform ASW, or must rely soley on helos to do it (although I won't raise the issue if some of those VLS cells will utilize VL Asrocs).

 

A particle beam weapon on a 25,000 ton hull, Herald?

For all that electrical power potential, why not a caterpillar drive (MHD), do away with the propellors altogether?

 

Maybe the USN can dig through its archives on all the EM spectrum research it's done in years past, and maybe actually come up with the first effective shipborne EM shield while we're at it?

(providing that doesn't make it more susceptible to magnetically-influenced mines and torpedoes...)

 

...think of the CG-X then as SeaQuest DSV that stays on the surface all the time...?

To shoot down enemy cruise missiles, aircraft, MBs of all classes up to ICBMs and their RVs of course. That takes a lot of electricity.

As for the caterpillar drive?  Why bother? Mister wakehoming torpedo isn't going to be fooled by it, and a pumpjet at a reasonable speed is good enough for what we want-which is to get the BBNX to where it can hurt the enemy with the particle beam in OFFENSE as well as defense. 

Herald

 
Quote    Reply

jak267       12/25/2007 4:52:56 AM
Cold War designs were predicated on all-out warfare between carrier battle groups and land and sea-based air at long ranges. Armor was a liability because of its weight.

But for the kinds of duties the Navy is doing today, they are going to need armored ships.

 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345       12/25/2007 5:02:57 AM

Cold War designs were predicated on all-out warfare between carrier battle groups and land and sea-based air at long ranges. Armor was a liability because of its weight.

But for the kinds of duties the Navy is doing today, they are going to need armored ships.


Armor at the level of warfighting I discuss is WORTHLESS. However a particle beam cannon that beam scans scans like radar and then loads energy [well properly WORK] into you immediately when it ground paths you?

KABOOM.

herald
 
Quote    Reply

FJV       12/25/2007 11:00:10 AM
THEL warship?

Put 5 THEL units on it and park it next to Korea, Iran, Pakistan, China. Should take out a lot of ballistic missiles. Just think of it as a "portable" missile shield.



 
Quote    Reply

earlm    USN Designers in Crisis   12/25/2007 2:23:30 PM
We've the standard BBs, the fast BBs, the best gun cruisers, the best DDs, Spruance, and Aegis but I wonder if the tradition of great USN designs may be ending when I see DDX, CGX, and LCS.  The USN has three types of conflict to fight.  1.  All out slugfest.  This has two components, a high seas compnent and a littoral component.  2.  GW1 and Iraqi Freedom type wars.  3.  Piracy, drug smuggling, disaster relief.  These three types of conflict require a very large, very expensive and basically it is not viable that we'll do it right with the current budget.  There needs to be a total rethinking of how naval war will be fought and how it will be won.  For type 1 we need total aerospace dominance where he fleet is cued into an information system that gives knowledge of enemy whearabouts while denying knowledge of our positions.  Really, the enemy fleet should be mined in with drones or sunk at sea by the USAF (United States Aerospace Force).  For fighting in the littorals we would need a fleet totaly unlike what we have now or are proposing with lots of unmanned systems.  For type 2 we could use the fleet from type 1 or really we could use Aegis and Perry class.  For type 3 the temptation is to go gunboats but the problem is the cost of manpower precludes this.  The Navy needs to do what the army is doing with FCS and focus on an information system.  If they do,they will realize the folly of BBs.  It seems to me the missile/information age calls for larger numbers of ships with good sensors and missiles to act as nodes in a network.  The threat will probably be mostly neutralized by your network which includes satellites, a global strik platform, andumanned systems.  One of two things would happen in such a slugfest. Your nework is best and you win easily or it is second best and you lose big time.  In case 2 the design of the ships is irrelevant but in case 1, you want larger numbers because where you will lose is mine warfare and lucky subs.  Better to lose a Type 45 type ship, 1 out of a dozen, then a 25,000 ton BB, 1 out of 3 to a sub resting on the bottom with wake homing torpedoes.  Also, in a GW1 type war you can feel better about having a Type 45 type ship patrollong offshore at risk than a BB.  Go by the tonnage.  25,000 tons is a BB and you can't risk them. 
 
Quote    Reply
1 2 3 4 5 6   NEXT