Arsenal Ship Debate Returns

I typically refer to a small surface combatant as any ship under 3,000 tons. I typically refer to a medium surface combatants as any ship between 3,000 tons and 8,000 tons. I typically refer to a large surface combatant as any ship over 8,000 tons. The largest two classes of ships built in the modern missile era is the US Navy's USS Long Beach at around 15,500 tons and the Russian Navy's Project 1411 Orlan class at around 24,300 tons, also known as the Kirov class. What if the Navy decided to build a 25,000 ton nuclear battle cruiser? Apparently, it is being considered.

Under pressure from the Navy to develop a new cruiser based on the DDG 1000 Zumwalt-class hull form, and from Congress to incorporate nuclear power, a group of analysts working on the next big surface combatant may recommend two different ships to form the CG(X) program.

One ship would be a 14,000-ton derivative of the DDG 1000, an “escort cruiser,” to protect aircraft carrier strike groups. The vessel would keep the tumblehome hull of the DDG 1000 and its gas turbine power plant.

The other new cruiser would be a much larger, 25,000-ton nuclear-powered ship with a more conventional flared bow, optimized for the ballistic missile defense (BMD) mission.

In all, five large CGN(X) ships and 14 escort cruisers would be built to fulfill the cruiser requirement in the Navy’s 30-year, 313-ship plan, which calls for replacing today’s CG 47 Ticonderoga-class Aegis cruisers and adding a specially designed sea-based missile defense force.

The ideas are taking shape as part of an analysis of alternatives (AoA), due to the Navy this fall from the Center for Naval Analyses, a federally funded research center in Arlington, Va.

Look, I am all about alternatives, I have been very critical of the 313-ship fleet because I believe there are alternative fleet designs out there somewhere that can lead to a better, smarter, larger fleet design, however one of the problems I have with the 313-ship fleet is that it is too expensive. The DD(X) class, at 14,500 tons, is part of that expensive fleet, so just how expensive would a 25,000 ton nuclear battle cruiser be?

Am I to believe the 19 CG(X) ships in the 313-ship fleet being proposed is actually 5 CGN(X) and 14 CG(X), and funded as such? Where does the DD(X) fit into the mix, or do the remaining 5 DDG-1000s get canceled to afford the extra cost of the CGN(X)?

I am on record suggesting the Navy should build the first 2 DD(X) as technology demonstrators. I believe it is important to get the right hull design, get the right propulsion, to test stealth at sea, to work out the new technologies before applying these new technologies to a new class of ship. I have stated the 2 DD(X) should be to the next generation of ships what the USS Long Beach and USS Bainbridge were to the current generation fleet.

The USS Long Beach and USS Bainbridge were major platforms for testing propulsion ideas like nuclear power, missile weapon systems (the USS Long Beach was the first ship designed to have missiles as its primary weapon system), and determine the best hull design for the future fleet (the USS Long Beach was also the last true long cruiser hull built by the US Navy, while the Bainbridge hull was used as a stepping stone for the Spruance, Ticonderoga, and Arleigh Burke classes).

Where do the two funded DDG-1000s fit into this potential alternative? Does this mean the Navy is looking to go smaller for the DDG(X) replacement for the DDG-51 class? Will the increased costs of nuclear power on surface combatants shrink the fleet even further? Is the CGN(X) the return of the arsenal ship with this new BMD mission capability? I wonder who will be first to suggest the LPD 17 hull for the 25,000 ton CGN?

There are a lot of questions here, I for one will be looking for this "analysis of alternatives" due out this fall. You never know, there could be some really good ideas in there.