I like all the added AAW capability, although I would keep the RAM mounts on their own, so you can defend against a multiple axis attack. Also if you are shooting your 5" and RAM at the same target, you are likely to hit your own missles.

As long as we are at it, why not put 5 dual mounts on each side and for good measure put two triple 16 inch turrets on the bow and another at the stern.

ShinyTop, does that mean you're bald? Just curious, as a new poster why would you make a joke at the expense of westwords2020, one of the more knowledgeable posters on naval issues. Try giving us something to have a reason to think your just not a flake?

"Also if you are shooting your 5" and RAM at the same target, you are likely to hit your own missles." myabe not so insurmountable though, mod the FCS to shoot at incoming rather than outgoing with a bit more finesse and discrtetion than "normal"

The FCS while aiming at the incoming will have to make sure there is no outbound in the trajectory of the gun. That's going to require some pretty hairy calculation speeds. And as the missile adjust it's trajectory the FCS will have to make adjustments real time. I'd actually prefer to skip the guns altogether with the exception of a 50mm high performance weapon to take out or scare small vessels. I'm not a fan of guns for AA, the missiles have much higher success rates and greater distances. If I recall correctly the RAM has a 90%+ hit rate.

Curious, just how much do all these enhancements add to weight/displacement? And, probably more importantly, how much more would such an Arliegh cost?

Good question. But it depends on what we add/change for the next version. My view is to not add major guns, and focus on automation and adding AAW capabilities. So the price would be rather modest. The cost of the last ABs coming out of BIW in ME are actually cheaper than earlier ones as they figured out how to make them faster. "FARRAGUT early in January for a million fewer labor hours than the first DDG off the land level facility." See http://www.gdbiw.com/ The AB is a great ship that has been well proven to be a good system. Why change things, just change the weapons and sensors which is what they've been doing for years.

Adding a dual gun mount to each side of the AB class is changing a well balanced warship into an abomination. The weight of the extra mountings caused my sarcastic comment. We have limited money to spend on the Navy and we need to spend it wisely. The additional weight on the beams of the ship would also be quite a redesign to keep the ship seaworthy in all seas. My apologies if you think one must be a veteran poster to post here. The difficulties of the changes he proposed were so evident I am surprised that anybody questioned my answer. He also proposed the OTO mount when our mount already exists with the same 40 RPM and 62 caliber barrel. Why change to an Italian mount?

The concept of mounting independantly elevating RAM mounts comes from a proposal that was current in 1992 and was called Sideshooter. Presumably the FCS would suppress gunfire while RAM was in flight and/or make the necessary timing in gunfire to allow the RAM missiles to get clear of the gun target. My knowledge of guns comes from Friedman's Naval Weapons 1997 which I hope will be succeded in my library in the new edition just out. From Navweaps.com site I looked at the OTO Melara mount and noted it has 40rds/min as long as the ammo supply from three 22 round loader drums lasts. Three drums are intended to handle three different ammo types including chaff rounds. Ammo is fixed and Vulcano rounds for 45 nmi range for GPS homing as fire support and terminal seeker for antiship variant. Rounds are ballistic though a RAP guided round may be fielded as well. Reaction time of the gun is five seconds. Pairing the guns achieves higher firing rate especially since the 62 calibre barrel installation will reduce rate of fire but I hope that 60rds/min is still achievable. The US five inch mounting is very lightweight compared to this system but at a cost in max elevation and a very, very slow rate of fire of twenty std. rds. or 10 ERGM rounds/min with a single 20 std/10ERGM rounds loader drum. Having two twin guns would give greater fire support capability with 4-8 rds/min from each mount sustained and approaching what a six gun 155mm USMC battery might achieve if both mounts are use for same fire mission. I had considered one mount but the RAM/gun combo would be blocked by superstructure when firing aft. Two mounts eliminate blind spot. Total RAM capacity is 84 if all RAM or less if torpedo/missile decoys, ATTs are mounted. And I hope the 76mm DAVIDE guided subcaliber AA round could be scaled up for the five inch. I think it is command guided and all these guns and guided roundns have been mostly paid for by the Italians, not USN. We would have to design the Sideshooter twin mounting and license build it from OTO-Melara though. Have I answered everyone's questions. Just two twin mounts, EW3?

The 62 mount for the US 5 inch gun has beend deployed on the USS Churchill and will be retrofitted to all Ti's and is being considered for AB class as well. The structural beefing up for the higher firing pressures enabled them to raise the rate of fire to 40 rounds per minute, the original design rate for the Mk 45 that was reduced to 20 rpm for the sake of increased reliability. It is also mounted in a faceted mount for reduced radar cross section. The MK 116 Ram launcher is a lightweight launcher for 11 missiles. Each missile has a range of less than 10K. From just this much information I doubt if any torpedo/anti-torpedo weapon can be fitted to the RAM launcher.