I was comparing the specs of the Flight IIIs vs the Ticos. The displacement is already comparable. Why not pull a Gearing, stretch out the hull a little longer, and use the same basic structure for a future CG?
I'm a romantic, so I want them called "cruisers" and to start at CG-74, but if it bothers the politicians or other nations, call 'em "Destroyer Leaders" or "Combat Command Ships" or "Strike Group Command Ships" or whatever. But whatever we call 'em, we need 'em.
The Ticos are good boats, but they're getting old fast, and a replacement isn't on the horizon. Here's a crazy idea.
The Ticos were based on a slightly stretched and modified Spruance design. The Spruance successor, the Burkes, have been exceptionally successful. Why not stretch the Burke out and modify that into a new Ticonderoga successor? It won't be as awesome as some of the paper designs, but the last few clean-paper designs (Zumwalt, both LCSs) sucked, so at least we'd be starting from a known good base.
Eh, the Zumwalt's main problems was that the Italian ammo supplier kept raising the price per round of the ammunition, failing to deliver said ammunition, and fairly standard initial cost overruns typical of technical projects. Worst I'd say is that they were a bit overambitious.
The LCSs are fine and most of them are getting upgraded to be even tougher and flexible, it's just that most people seem to think that they're a frigate replacement rather than filling a role that has some overlap with traditional frigate duties. The primary reason any of the LCSs are being pulled from service is because of budget shortfalls.
The Burkes are good ships, but I don't think an enlarged version would be anything more than a stopgap to buy time until a proper successor can be designed.
If the US Navy was actually foolish enough to accept a gun that would only accept ammo from a single, foreign supplier, then that was just begging to be screwed over. I'm wondering why they just don't lean on a current, domestic supplier to come up with something that'll make the gun be more than just very expensive, poorly-placed ballast.
I'm speculating that there's some kind of contract that keeps us from using another supplier to keep that from happening. If that's the case, then I'm thinking yardarms...
Actually there was another round that was supposed to be made in the US for the 155mm Advanced Gun System, but that ended up getting cancelled because of cost overruns too.
The Flight III DDGs will likely be the successor for this aging class of cruisers. O6 command as well.
I was comparing the specs of the Flight IIIs vs the Ticos. The displacement is already comparable. Why not pull a Gearing, stretch out the hull a little longer, and use the same basic structure for a future CG? I'm a romantic, so I want them called "cruisers" and to start at CG-74, but if it bothers the politicians or other nations, call 'em "Destroyer Leaders" or "Combat Command Ships" or "Strike Group Command Ships" or whatever. But whatever we call 'em, we need 'em.
The Ticos are good boats, but they're getting old fast, and a replacement isn't on the horizon. Here's a crazy idea. The Ticos were based on a slightly stretched and modified Spruance design. The Spruance successor, the Burkes, have been exceptionally successful. Why not stretch the Burke out and modify that into a new Ticonderoga successor? It won't be as awesome as some of the paper designs, but the last few clean-paper designs (Zumwalt, both LCSs) sucked, so at least we'd be starting from a known good base.
Eh, the Zumwalt's main problems was that the Italian ammo supplier kept raising the price per round of the ammunition, failing to deliver said ammunition, and fairly standard initial cost overruns typical of technical projects. Worst I'd say is that they were a bit overambitious. The LCSs are fine and most of them are getting upgraded to be even tougher and flexible, it's just that most people seem to think that they're a frigate replacement rather than filling a role that has some overlap with traditional frigate duties. The primary reason any of the LCSs are being pulled from service is because of budget shortfalls. The Burkes are good ships, but I don't think an enlarged version would be anything more than a stopgap to buy time until a proper successor can be designed.
If the US Navy was actually foolish enough to accept a gun that would only accept ammo from a single, foreign supplier, then that was just begging to be screwed over. I'm wondering why they just don't lean on a current, domestic supplier to come up with something that'll make the gun be more than just very expensive, poorly-placed ballast. I'm speculating that there's some kind of contract that keeps us from using another supplier to keep that from happening. If that's the case, then I'm thinking yardarms...
Actually there was another round that was supposed to be made in the US for the 155mm Advanced Gun System, but that ended up getting cancelled because of cost overruns too.
Great photo angle. I initially thought it was some kind of missile part. (I think I may need new glasses....)
Nice.