Thanks for replying! I'm gonna discuss this here before I rework things, so hang with me for a bit.
1. The Helena-class should have Mod 2 Mk. 26 launchers for 128 missiles.
Will fix.
2. I still don't think the carrier version of the Strike Cruiser is a good idea, mostly because it's still not clear what they're supposed to be used for.
They are meant to be better versions of a regular strike cruiser - same mission, just now they have an air wing so they can be even better at fending of soviet attacks. At least, that's how I understand it.
3. Why Hayler as a DDH? Congress was way more enamored with that idea than the Navy, which is why she was reordered as a normal Sprucan.
I figured, with all the other stuff going on, why not? Then again, I kind of half-did it, to be truly cost-effective she would need to have sister ships built in series, and I don't see an operational need for that. Maybe ITTL the soviet submarine fleet is a bigger threat? Or perhaps I should switch her back to a regular Spruance, or re-order her as a Kidd. Also, btw, what happened to her planned sister ship? According to Wikipedia, the navy was authorized to build 2 new Spruances, but they only built one.
4. Why only 12 Ticonderogas? That doesn't fit with a 15-carrier fleet, and its actually less money spent than the US Navy did IOTL.
I figured based on the fact that a strike cruiser/carrier costs 1.5 times as much as a Ticonderoga, it was either 8 CSGN + 15 Ticos or 8 CSGN + 2 CVSN + 12 Ticos. But yeah, now I'm thinking about it they would want 15 to be able to escort their carriers. I'll change it back, but I'm not sure where the money is coming from.
5. There are three major problems with the Atlanta class: one, they're too early. The Ticonderogas start decommissioning 2021, the Helenas 2023. Aim for the 2020s. Second, they're too small for what you're fitting into them. 6 helicopters and 192 Mk. 57 cells is a 20,000+ ton ship. Third, since you're already recasting the late-flight Johnstons as your alt-Zumwalts (and I'll get to those shortly), you don't want the AN/SPY-3/4 combo. Target date 2020s, large ship - you want an AN/SPY-6 variant, the largest you can manage.
The Atlantas, essentially, should be your replacement for both the Ticonderogas and the Helenas. That is to say, it needs to be both the high-end DL for carrier escort, and the centerpiece of SAGs for missile combat with China.
Okay, I'll push them back a bit. Also, you keep on saying that these VLS cells are extremely heavy, but they aren't. An empty 8-cell Mk. 57 VLS cells weigh 15.2 tonnes, the missiles weigh an average of 5 tonnes. That's around 20 tonnes per 8 Mk. 51 VLS (the Mk. 41 weight is the exact same as far as I can tell from Wikipedia), so 192 Mk. 57 VLS cells weigh 480 tonnes. And as for deck space, check out the images I linked at the end of that post. I'll admit, at the end of the day if you can link to a USN study that says they need 20,000+ tons I'll believe them, they obviously have way more experience than me, but right now you haven't, and everything else I've seen says that's not the case.
6. Why are you building more Perries?
It's based on something said by
Not James Stockdale earlier in the thread. I'll paraphrase:
-----
Acquisition of 9 new frigates (prob Perry-class) in early 1990s flowed by 2 new per year to maintain fleet of 60 at a maximum age of 30 years
Acquisition of 4 new destroyers (prob Spruance-class) per year between 1975 and 1990, followed by Spruance replacement at a rate of 2 per year.
Upgrades in periodic refits would bring these ships up to the standard of the Kidd-class as existing Terrier ships (Farragut, Leahy, Belknap) are retired around 1990.
First 30 command ships are California and Virginia-class cruisers, followed by conventionally powered Virginias (probably 1 per year) with Terrier until Aegis becomes available.
The highly idealized objective fleet for the 1980s is therefore:
Escort anti-submarine guard ships: 120
Half of these are Knox-class and preceding ocean escorts and the other half are Perry-class ships with moderate air warfare capabilities.
Fleet anti-submarine guard ships: 30
The Spruance-class, as modified IOTL.
Fleet air warfare guard ships: 60
Half of these are upgraded Terrier ships and the other half are Aegis air warfare command ships.
-----
I'm not sure why exactly he/she wants 30 Californias & Virginias, and then more conventionally powered versions on top, but the 60 frigates did seem like a good idea.
Btw, that post and a few others lead me to make this 'list of ship types for carrier escort' that I came up with when I started trying to resurrect this thread. A few of the numbers have since changed, but in general, it's accurate. Any thoughts on it?
-----
Ticonderoga-class Destroyer Leader - 7,100 to 9,800 tonnes
Aegis equipped stretched Spruance with 128 VLS cells & 2 helicopters
Spruance FII-class ASW Destroyer - 6,900 to 8,300 tonnes
Spruance with a Mod 0 Mk. 26 launcher fore and a Mod 1 aft (ASROCs weren't VLS compatible until 1993) & 2 helicopters
Spruance FIIA-class AA Destroyer - 6,900 to 8,300 tonnes
Spruance with 128 VLS cells & 2 helicopters
New AA Destroyer - 6,900 to 8,300 tonnes
Aegis equipped new hull with 96 VLS cells
New FII-class Multirole Destroyer - 7,500 to 9,800 tonnes
Aegis equipped ship with 128 VLS cells & 2 helicopters
New FIII-class Multirole Destroyer - 8,300 to 10,500 tonnes
Aegis equipped ship with 128 VLS cells & 4 helicopters
-----
7. Okay, time for the elephant in the room: the Johnston development line. Because it starts out alright but then devolves into a mess. First of all, the Cold War dragging on until 1996 is going to adjust the numbers. IOTL the US Navy was originally planning to nab 30 Flight I/II Burkes before moving onto the larger Flight III variant - more on that in a moment. So I'd recommend 30 Flight I Johnstons. Second, I recommend combining the Flights II and III, with the first ships finishing in 2000 or thereabouts, into a single 128-cell variant. I don't really see any point in having 112 and 128-cell variants. This works with OTL plans for the Flight III, which was a enlarged variant with 128 cells and enclosed helicopter hangers; then the Soviet Union collapsed the significantly cheaper Flight IIA was done instead. Also, bump up the displacement - and dimensions - to 8500/11,000 to match the Sejongs. Keep all 36, you'll need them if you're going to form SAGs with the Helenas.
That all makes sense. I feel like an idiot now for not realizing the consequences of the USSR sticking around, but I'll do what you suggested.
The Flight IVs are where things truly get squirrely. For two reasons: for one, with all the changes you make to them they're not a Johnston variant anymore. Between the new radar fit, expanded flight deck and hanger, and heavier armament, it really is a new class, the more so because like the Atlantas they're way too small for what you're fitting into them. Going from 128 Mk. 41 to 128 Mk. 57 alone should be increasing displacement way more than it actually does. You really need to make them a completely separate class in a larger hull, probably one at least as large as the OTL Zumwalts, and with fewer variants. Numbers are fine, though.
Again, the VLS cells have the exact same weight (well, from what I can tell a Mk. 57 8-cell VLS module weighs
200 kg more than a Mk. 41 8-cell module). I'm guessing the massive increase in displacement was due to the tumblehome hull, and the fact that has a higher waterline surface area than deck surface area. I do agree on naming it a new class of ship though.
8. You're pushing the Spruance-class far too hard. They're not going to last as long as you think they will, they only have 35-year service lives and frankly should all be out of service by 2015, while you're consistently pushing them over the 35-year mark.
From Wikipedia:
"In order to save $28 million a year, the Navy accelerated the
decommissioning of the
Spruance class, though they could have served to 2019 had they been maintained and updated." I listed the last Spruance as being decommed in 2019. So it's fine.
9. The Cold War going on until 1996 has knock-on effects that your current plan doesn't consider. For one, I think there would be more than four Seawolfs built, the decision to cancel the program wasn't done until four years after the end of the Cold War IOTL. That means the decision to cancel ITTL would be around 2000, and it's not unlikely that all 12 (after a cutdown from 29) are already laid down by then.
On the one hand, I really love the Seawolf a lot, so yay. On the other hand, now I might have to redo the Virginias, and those are a lot of ships that I have to manually go and type out commission dates for. Still, worth it for more Seawolfs. I am a bit concerned where the funds for them are coming from though. IIRC the Seawolfs were a bit
too good and were ridiculously expensive because of it.
More importantly, pushing the end back to 1996 IMO means major changes to the small surface combatant fleet. Your Harold R. Stark design makes sense for a 1991 end to the Cold War, which gives the US more time to faff about with littoral operations. Push it back to 1996, and the priority is going to shift to a Knox replacement, which will lead to a very different concept.
IOTL the early designs for the Burke-class were a return to attempting a minimum AEGIS ship, and was split into two potential sensor fits. DDGX (not DDG(X), different programs) was the full-on AAW version that became the Burkes; DDGY had the same weapons and hull, but ditched AEGIS. DDGY is our point of comparison here; it would be 5400 tons or thereabouts, with no AEGIS, 32 missile cells, and likely a towed sonar array to go along with two helicopters. This is what's likely to get built should the Cold War continue on.
Crap. That's even more typing to do now. Oh well. To be honest, while the Independence-class LCS does look very cool, that's about all I like about it. So switching to a more conventional 5,400 tonne frigate (I'll have to redo the ship classification system for that otherwise it'll be a destroyer) is good.
If you're going to modernize Des Moines and Salem, why not replace the powerplant with gas turbines? and pull the 5in 38's? the hulls have comparatively little sea time and have been kept in fresh water mothballs in Philadelphia...if you're going to spend the bucks why not try to get an additional bang out of them?
I'm assuming for now that the Des Moines don't get modernized. While they are cool, I prefer the battleships, and we need as many funds as possible saved to get two of the Iowas through BBG conversions in 1994/95 before the USSR collapses.
So, a few more things:
1 - Is 8 CSGN + 2 CVSN + 15 Ticos realistic cost-wise?
2 - Does anyone have any actual sources they can link showing exactly how much a non-tumblehome Zumwalt (based on an Arleigh Burke/Johnston hull, to be exact) would need to displace to have 192 VLS cells. My math says 12,000 to 14,000 tonnes approx, based on the known mass of the cells and the deck space needed to house them, the latter of which I have actual diagrams of. (btw, the reason the VLS cells fit on the very edges of the Johnston-FIVA and Atlanta is that they are angled outwards around 15 degrees to let them fit into the hull as it tapers towards the waterline (which would probably also have the effect of making them look really cool), I'm pretty sure this is possible, but any thoughts?)
3 - Does anyone have any thoughts on what role a Hayler-class DDH could fill? Or should I scrap that idea?
4 - Do we actually need 60 frigates or have I gotten that wrong?
5 - btw, any thoughts on the other stuff this thread has touched on? Like the naming/classification schemes.
