Mk70 corvette

[johnpjones1775]

A large ship makes maintenance take longer, and it also makes construction hard, both of which is a much bigger cost factor than...paint.

Penny pinching is how DOD can't afford its current ship numbers, much less more ships.



You are literally demonstrating the problematic mentality: stuffing an American ship full of complex battle systems to a positively Italian level because "it's empty". No, that's the point. It's supposed to be empty. It's why the Spruances were cheap. Cheap ships are:

1) Large.
2) Underarmed.

That's it.

Make a Burke. Strip out everything except the towed array, bow sonar, the deck gun, the CIWS mounts, the SVTTs, and a single helicopter.

That's a very cheap ship.

sure cheap, but not as cheap as a ship that’s smaller.

Penny pinching is not how we got here.
We got here by ordering 90 ships that each cost $1b or more per hull, and completely privatizing the ship design, construction, and repair industry, and by trying to jump too far ahead technologically than we were actually ready for.

Building stripped down burkes will compete for yard space than smaller ships will, and we don’t have enough shipyards as it is that can handle these large ships for repair or construction.

A small 2k ton vessel can be built in smaller yards, effectively expanding our industrial naval base, and some of those workers and yards will gain experience with warships and maybe be able to expand to handle bigger ships in the future providing for more yards to also build and more connies, Burkes and DDGXs.

 

[Kat Tsun]

sure cheap, but not as cheap as a ship that’s smaller.

There was an incredibly good breakdown of size versus systems for ship cost estimates. I've never been able to find it again but basically there's a bathtub curve. Too small, ship is expensive. Too big, ship needs large machinery and gearboxes to move, which are expensive.

The Perry was too small. The Spruance MIGHT have been too big, but not significantly so.

The takeaway is that small ships can be just as expensive per ton as very big ships. As an example, LCS-27 cost $584 million for a full displacement of 3,500 t. ~$165,000/ton. DDG-131, the latest Burke laid down, cost $1.45 billion for 9,700 t full displacement. $150,000/ton.

If you want a small and cheap ship, you better be prepared to pack as few systems as possible. A 2,000 tonner might be able to mount a couple 25mms, some Griffon missiles, maybe a SeaRAM, a small surface search and nav set, an electro-optical system, and a rubber boat. If you want to splurge, you can go for a Mk 48 VLS and a dozen or so ESSM if you opt for the SPQ-9B. At most.

No helicopters. No UAS.

It would be more similar to a overgrown Cyclone than anything.

We got here by ordering 90 ships that each cost $1b or more per hull, and completely privatizing the ship design, construction, and repair industry, and by trying to jump too far ahead technologically than we were actually ready for.

Then we should order another 30 Burkes and call it a day. This would have been preferable to the trainwrecks of LCS and Constellation.

 

[johnpjones1775]

There was an incredibly good breakdown of size versus systems for ship cost estimates. I've never been able to find it again but basically there's a bathtub curve. Too small, ship is expensive. Too big, ship needs large machinery and gearboxes to move, which are expensive.

The Perry was too small. The Spruance MIGHT have been too big, but not significantly so.

The takeaway is that small ships can be just as expensive per ton as very big ships. As an example, LCS-27 cost $584 million for a full displacement of 3,500 t. ~$165,000/ton. DDG-131, the latest Burke laid down, cost $1.45 billion for 9,700 t full displacement. $150,000/ton.

If you want a small and cheap ship, you better be prepared to pack as few systems as possible. A 2,000 tonner might be able to mount a few .50 cals, a Bushmaster, some Griffon missiles, a small surface search and nav set, an electro-optic, and a rubber boat. At most.



Then we should order another 30 Burkes and call it a day. This would have been preferable to the trainwrecks of LCS and Constellation.

I don’t care about cost per ton, I care about the final cost, and $500m is nearly 1/3 of $1.4b

Did you even read the first post?
It will bare bones for it’s organic systems, and all of those systems are plenty capable of fitting on a ship that size.
The armament you described is what gets put on boats that are a few dozen tons.
I’m not going to speculate on cost because it would likely be ridiculously more than it should be regardless.

But yes, we definitely needed more $1b+ ships that we can’t afford, let alone build in a timely manner, just to wear down their hulls and machinery on mostly BS missions

 

[Kat Tsun]

I don’t care about cost per ton, I care about the final cost, and $500m is nearly 1/3 of $1.4b

If you want a $500 mn ship, we already have one: LCS Freedom. It performs as well as you'd expect. The problems facing American shipbuilding are that it's completely non-competitive outside of two very tiny niches: large surface combatants and nuclear submarines.

This is an intractable, and now irreversible, macroeconomic problem. All those tiny shipyards you imagine making such ships already make ships: the LCS! They're all horrible and godawful little boats, that spent more time in port fighting rust than they do at sea fighting pirates, because the shipbuilders themselves are all extremely incompetent!

There are a few good shipbuilders in the United States and they're all tooled out to build Burkes, Nimitzes/Fords, and Virginias. Soon, Columbias. Closing all those little shipyards and moving their tradesmen to Bath or HII would be best. Decentralizing shipbuilding would only hurt the USN.

The armament you described is what gets put on boats that are a few dozen tons.

This so perfectly encapsulates why the USN will never be able to successfully build a ship under 9,000 tons ever again.

But yes, we definitely needed more $1b+ ships that we can’t afford, let alone build in a timely manner, just to wear down their hulls and machinery on mostly BS missions

All of the money spent on the LCS and Constellations could have built about 30 new Burkes at present Flight III costs (~$1.45 bn negotiated contract as of Q3FY23) for Bath. This, combined with reducing our European presence, would have ensured INDOPACCOM could do every single mission asked of it without needing tiny little useless things.

It would mean every single shipyard in Alabama and Mississippi or whatever (except the Gator yards), and Fincantieri USA, would also close.

This is no great loss as evidenced by the ships they constructed. It might even be a net positive.

 

[johnpjones1775]

If you want a $500 mn ship, we already have one: LCS Freedom. It performs as well as you'd expect. The problems facing American shipbuilding are that it's completely non-competitive outside of two very tiny niches: large surface combatants and nuclear submarines.

This is an intractable, and now irreversible, macroeconomic problem. All those tiny shipyards you imagine making such ships already make ships: the LCS! They're all horrible and godawful little boats, that spent more time in port fighting rust than they do at sea fighting pirates, because the shipbuilders themselves are all extremely incompetent!

There are a few good shipbuilders in the United States and they're all tooled out to build Burkes, Nimitzes/Fords, and Virginias. Soon, Columbias. Closing all those little shipyards and moving their tradesmen to Bath or HII would be best. Decentralizing shipbuilding would only hurt the USN.



This so perfectly encapsulates why the USN will never be able to successfully build a ship under 9,000 tons ever again.



All of the money spent on the LCS and Constellations could have built about 30 new Burkes at present Flight III costs (~$1.45 bn negotiated contract as of Q3FY23) for Bath. This, combined with reducing our European presence, would have ensured INDOPACCOM could do every single mission asked of it without needing tiny little useless things.

You haven’t paid attention to a damn thing that’s been said in this thread have you?

 

[Kat Tsun]

You haven’t paid attention to a damn thing that’s been said in this thread have you?

I pay attention to real life...

The ship is cool I guess, but given how America builds ships in actually competent yards (Bath and HII), it's not very practical. It's an attempt to call back to a long-dead version of American shipbuilding that made sense in the 1970s when the Perries were built. This America hasn't existed for 50+ years. This is something admirals have an obsession with too, for some unknown-to-me reason, but probably because they grew up commanding FFGs.

It's more practical build a giant Burke "fitted for but not with" Mk 41s and Aegis at present.

America's entire shipbuilding industry for surface combatants is a factory that takes steel and silicon, and transmutes it into DDG-51s, CVN-78s, and SSN-774s, and basically nothing else. Everything else is a hanger-on that is kept alive by political lobbying, but is not actually economically feasible, and this hanger-on element proves it every other decade when they are asked to make a ship and fail in a stupendous fashion.

This kind of tiny boat would make way more sense for Korea or Japan, if they weren't interested in building La Fayettes instead, tbh.

 

[johnpjones1775]

I pay attention to real life...

The ship is cool I guess, but given how America builds ships in actually competent yards (Bath and HII), it's not very practical. It's an attempt to call back to a long-dead version of American shipbuilding that made sense in the 1970s when the Perries were built. This America hasn't existed for 50+ years. This is something admirals have an obsession with too, for some unknown-to-me reason, but probably because they grew up commanding FFGs.

It's more practical build a giant Burke "fitted for but not with" Mk 41s and Aegis at present.

America's entire shipbuilding industry for surface combatants is a factory that takes steel and silicon, and transmutes it into DDG-51s, CVN-78s, and SSN-774s, and basically nothing else. Everything else is a hanger-on that is kept alive by political lobbying, but is not actually economically feasible, and this hanger-on element proves it every other decade when they are asked to make a ship and fail in a stupendous fashion.

This kind of tiny boat would make way more sense for Korea or Japan, if they weren't interested in building La Fayettes instead, tbh.

And yet this ship can be made in other smaller shipyards that we currently aren’t utilizing at all, and can begin the process of slowly reinvigorating our ship building and repair capacity.

The problem is the obsession with giant ships. Of course we can’t expand capabilities because the yards we do have, have limited space, and it would be stupid to invest money into a major expansion of a yard that may have never built a single warship, and if it had, hasn’t done so since Regan was in office.

Be stuck in the past about LCSes all you want, they’ve been proving themselves in the fleet, particularly during combat operations. I agree we do need more of them, but due to the way their program was mishandled that’s unlikely to happen, but we need more small combatants that can provide escorts as well.

Edit
Also the issues with Connie have nothing to do with our shipbuilding industry, it’s BS American exceptionalism and arrogance, god forbid we have 85% design commonality with the European versions, has to be 15% or less or it’s not American enough.

 

[Kat Tsun]

And yet this ship can be made in other smaller shipyards that we currently aren’t utilizing at all,

They're being utilized very heavily, actually! This is partly why the Connies are doing so poorly at the moment.

and can begin the process of slowly reinvigorating our ship building and repair capacity.

This is what LCS wanted. Look how LCS turned out: a ship that is 1/3rd the cost of a Burke for 1/10th the capability.

The problem is the obsession with giant ships.

If you're preoccupied with size, then you have no idea what drives the cost of ships, to be quite honest. The Constellation is shaping up to cost more than a Bath Flight III Burke, but with all the downsides of being made by Fincantieri USA/Mantiowoc, who are among the least competent builders in the country.

Of course we can’t expand capabilities because the yards we do have, have limited space, and it would be stupid to invest money into a major expansion of a yard that may have never built a single warship, and if it had, hasn’t done so since Regan was in office.

It would be better to close all those yards, pay their union workers enough money to move to Bath, and setup new lines by eminent domain. There is no actual place for the slideway yards that built Liberty Ships. They're inefficient and can't make a decent boat.

Be stuck in the past about LCSes all you want, they’ve been proving themselves in the fleet,

...they aren't, actually. The entire LCS program is being wound down to free up money for the DDG(X) preliminary design. The Navy will retire 14 of 33 LCS by 2027. The rest will likely follow before 2030 as DDG(X) and Connies need more money.

The United States cannot build small ships. It is a fundamental impossibility. These mythical small shipyards are too incompetent and too infrequency in work to have any real practice with shipbuilding such that every vessel they make is effectively a brand new learning curve.

Again, the ship is cool, and I think it would be cool if you did a 3D render of it or something. An American Abukuma or La Fayette would be neat, even if it would probably end up being closer to 4,200 tons than 2,200 tons, but let's not pretend it makes sense in the real world.

 

[johnpjones1775]

They're being utilized very heavily, actually! This is partly why the Connies are doing so poorly at the moment.



This is what LCS wanted. Look how LCS turned out: a ship that is 1/3rd the cost of a Burke for 1/10th the capability.



If you're preoccupied with size, then you have no idea what drives the cost of ships, to be quite honest. The Constellation is shaping up to cost more than a Bath Flight III Burke, but with all the downsides of being made by Fincantieri USA/Mantiowoc, who are among the least competent builders in the country.



It would be better to close all those yards, pay their union workers enough money to move to Bath, and setup new lines by eminent domain. There is no actual place for the slideway yards that built Liberty Ships. They're inefficient and can't make a decent boat.



...they aren't, actually. The entire LCS program is being wound down to free up money for the DDG(X) preliminary design. The Navy will retire 14 of 33 LCS by 2027. The rest will likely follow before 2030 as DDG(X) and Connies need more money.

The United States cannot build small ships. It is a fundamental impossibility. These mythical small shipyards are too incompetent and too infrequency in work to have any real practice with shipbuilding such that every vessel they make is effectively a brand new learning curve.

Again, the ship is cool, and I think it would be cool if you did a 3D render of it or something. An American Abukuma or La Fayette would be neat, even if it would probably end up being closer to 4,200 tons than 2,200 tons, but let's not pretend it makes sense in the real world.

Oh I’m sorry what warships are being built at delta marine? How about Burger Boat Company?
Again shipyards have nothing to do with the Connie problems. That’s admirals in big navy, constantly making changes to the design, and beginning construction before a final design existed.

 

[johnpjones1775]

They're being utilized very heavily, actually! This is partly why the Connies are doing so poorly at the moment.



This is what LCS wanted. Look how LCS turned out: a ship that is 1/3rd the cost of a Burke for 1/10th the capability.



If you're preoccupied with size, then you have no idea what drives the cost of ships, to be quite honest. The Constellation is shaping up to cost more than a Bath Flight III Burke, but with all the downsides of being made by Fincantieri USA/Mantiowoc, who are among the least competent builders in the country.



It would be better to close all those yards, pay their union workers enough money to move to Bath, and setup new lines by eminent domain. There is no actual place for the slideway yards that built Liberty Ships. They're inefficient and can't make a decent boat.



...they aren't, actually. The entire LCS program is being wound down to free up money for the DDG(X) preliminary design. The Navy will retire 14 of 33 LCS by 2027. The rest will likely follow before 2030 as DDG(X) and Connies need more money.

The United States cannot build small ships. It is a fundamental impossibility. These mythical small shipyards are too incompetent and too infrequency in work to have any real practice with shipbuilding such that every vessel they make is effectively a brand new learning curve.

Again, the ship is cool, and I think it would be cool if you did a 3D render of it or something. An American Abukuma or La Fayette would be neat, even if it would probably end up being closer to 4,200 tons than 2,200 tons, but let's not pretend it makes sense in the real world.

Yes they are, maybe keep up with the damn news.

The LCS program is being wound down because we have the last few ships we ordered currently being built. They won’t be retiring any more LCSes, there isn’t a single LCS currently on decommissioning list.

So like I said before, keep up with the news.

How are they too incompetent exactly?
Ordering a large batch of small ships will mean they no longer have infrequent work.
It’s only impossible because people don’t want to do what’s necessary for it to actually happen.

 

[johnpjones1775]

Indianapolis literally just received a combat action ribbon for being the AAWC ship for a SAG in the Red Sea and leading a successful defense of merchant shipping.

 

[johnpjones1775]

Disparaged, discontinued...and indispensable? Littoral combat ships take on real-world ops

The battle-tested LCS has moved past its reliability problems, surface-forces leaders said.

www.defenseone.com

 

[H_K]

The takeaway is that small ships can be just as expensive per ton as very big ships. As an example, LCS-27 cost $584 million for a full displacement of 3,500 t. ~$165,000/ton. DDG-131, the latest Burke laid down, cost $1.45 billion for 9,700 t full displacement. $150,000/ton.

If you want a small and cheap ship, you better be prepared to pack as few systems as possible. A 2,000 tonner might be able to mount a couple 25mms, some Griffon missiles, maybe a SeaRAM, a small surface search and nav set, an electro-optical system, and a rubber boat. If you want to splurge, you can go for a Mk 48 VLS and a dozen or so ESSM if you opt for the SPQ-9B. At most.

No helicopters. No UAS.

It would be more similar to a overgrown Cyclone than anything.

For what it’s worth, Italy’s new 2,400 ton OPVs cost ~€235M (i.e. ~$250M) without any missile armament or ASW capability. (~€165M i.e. ~$180M for the hull - built by Fincantieri in very efficient shipyards with relatively cheap Italian labor - plus ~€70M (i.e. ~$75M) for the combat system, sensors and guns - provided by Leonardo).

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/20 ... -overview/

I would assume the same hull would cost at least $200M built in the US (optimistically). Add $75M for an equivalent combat system, $10M for a RAM launcher and you’re around $300M for a very basic 24-25 knot corvette which would require additional drop-in systems (eg. decoy launchers, containerized towed sonar, optional Stanflex-like VLS modules for ESSM) to round out its capabilities and provide some wartime value.

Looking at this design, in order to fit midships missile launchers as desired by @johnpjones1775, the propulsion layout would have to be changed to waterline exhausts. Also the bridge area would have to be shortened to make space forward for additional launchers.

 

[Kat Tsun]

For what it’s worth, Italy’s new 2,400 ton OPVs cost ~€235M (i.e. ~$250M) without any missile armament or ASW capability. (~€165M i.e. ~$180M for the hull - built by Fincantieri in very efficient shipyards with relatively cheap Italian labor - plus ~€70M (i.e. ~$75M) for the combat system, sensors and guns - provided by Leonardo).

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/20 ... -overview/

I would assume the same hull would cost at least $200M built in the US (optimistically). Add $75M for an equivalent combat system, $10M for a RAM launcher and you’re around $300M for a very basic 24-25 knot corvette which would require additional drop-in systems (eg. decoy launchers, containerized towed sonar, optional Stanflex-like VLS modules for ESSM) to round out its capabilities and provide some wartime value.

Looking at this design, in order to fit midships missile launchers as desired by @johnpjones1775, the propulsion layout would have to be changed to waterline exhausts. Also the bridge area would have to be shortened to make space forward for additional launchers.

The main issue is that the USA doesn't have the capability to support tiny ships like this. Its demographics are too weak and its shipbuilding industry too small to fight a prolonged naval war. This will not change in the next 10, 20, 30, or 40 years.

If you could make this a USV, it would be good for the tiny shipyards, as they wouldn't need to worry about habitability or whatever.

I think that's basically what LUSV is supposed to be and it's not a bad idea. It's just that the USN won't buy enough of them I think.

 

[johnpjones1775]

The main issue is that the USA doesn't have the capability to support tiny ships like this. Its demographics are too weak and its shipbuilding industry too small to fight a prolonged naval war. This will not change in the next 10, 20, 30, or 40 years.

If you could make this a USV, it would be good for the tiny shipyards, as they wouldn't need to worry about habitability or whatever.

I think that's basically what LUSV is supposed to be and it's not a bad idea. It's just that the USN won't buy enough of them I think.

Idk where you got those numbers.

In 40 years we could have trained 2 generations of yard workers if we invested in selling kids on those jobs, and invested in our shipyards.
With the right investment we could have the yards themselves capable of building warships by 2035. The biggest shortfall is simply the manpower, but as I just said in 40 years we could have a significant increase in that sector, not including if we were to begin offering citizenship to people in the appropriate trades and their families to quickly boost those numbers(not happening with the current administration though.)

 

[H_K]

The main issue is that the USA doesn't have the capability to support tiny ships like this. Its demographics are too weak and its shipbuilding industry too small to fight a prolonged naval war.

Not convinced... there are at least 8 US yards in 7 states able to build ships in this size range and that have competed for Navy or Coast Guard build contracts in the past:

1. GD Bath Iron Works (Maine) - builds DDGs
2. GD Nassco (San Diego, California) - builds large auxiliaires (oilers etc)
3. Huntington Ingalls (Pascagoula, Mississippi) - Builds large amphibs and DDGs
4. Fincantieri Marinette Marine (Wisconsin) - builds LCS and FFG-62
5. Austal (Mobile, Alabama) - builds LCS for USN and OPCs for US Coast Guard
6. Eastern Shipbuilding (Panama City, Florida) - builds OPCs for US Coast Guard
7. VT Halter Marine (Pascagoula, Mississippi) - built Egyptian super FACs
8. Vigor Shipyards (Seattle, Washington)

 

[Kat Tsun]

Idk where you got those numbers.

The part where the recruiting crisis that has been ongoing for >20 years (and subsequent manning shortfalls) are so bad they've forced the USN to abandon simply automating the most manpower intensive ship subsystems (such as engineering watches), as was tried and failed with both DDG-1000 and LCS, and outright begin asking FMM and Bollinger to produce fully robotic ships instead.

In 40 years we could have trained 2 generations of yard workers if we invested in selling kids on those jobs, and invested in our shipyards.

The time to do this was 30 years ago. It's a bit too little late too late right now. DON is scrambling to make up hull losses. If Congress were smart it would allow the retirement of all LCS by 2030, and shunt funding to LUSV production, hopefully seeing first hulls in the water by 2027.

With the right investment we could have the yards themselves capable of building warships by 2035.

And the first ones roll out of the slipways in 2038? That's about a decade too late for most of DOD.

The biggest shortfall is simply the manpower, but as I just said in 40 years we could have a significant increase in that sector,

Not enough to support both ships and yards. Which is why the tiny yards are being asked to make 2,000 ton battle robots.

Not convinced... there are at least 8 US yards in 7 states able to build ships in this size range

If only we could find the sailors to man them and welders to make them...

The latter is less difficult, at least, but AFAIK only Bollinger/VT and FMM have actually been able to show their LUSVs.

US Navy Taps Six Firms for Large Drone Ship Concepts

The US Navy has asked Lockheed and five other companies to develop concepts for the service’s future large unmanned surface vessel.

thedefensepost.com

 

[johnpjones1775]

Not convinced... there are at least 8 US yards in 7 states able to build ships in this size range and that have competed for Navy or Coast Guard build contracts in the past:

1. GD Bath Iron Works (Maine) - builds DDGs
2. GD Nassco (San Diego, California) - builds large auxiliaires (oilers etc)
3. Huntington Ingalls (Pascagoula, Mississippi) - Builds large amphibs and DDGs
4. Fincantieri Marinette Marine (Wisconsin) - builds LCS and FFG-62
5. Austal (Mobile, Alabama) - builds LCS for USN and OPCs for US Coast Guard
6. Eastern Shipbuilding (Panama City, Florida) - builds OPCs for US Coast Guard
7. VT Halter Marine (Pascagoula, Mississippi) - built Egyptian super FACs
8. Vigor Shipyards (Seattle, Washington)

Even more when you look at yards building large pleasure craft and merchant ships

 

[johnpjones1775]

The part where the recruiting crisis that has been ongoing for >20 years (and subsequent manning shortfalls) are so bad they've forced the USN to abandon simply automating the most manpower intensive ship subsystems (such as engineering watches), as was tried and failed with both DDG-1000 and LCS, and outright begin asking FMM and Bollinger to produce fully robotic ships instead.



The time to do this was 30 years ago. It's a bit too little late too late right now. DON is scrambling to make up hull losses. If Congress were smart it would allow the retirement of all LCS by 2030, and shunt funding to LUSV production, hopefully seeing first hulls in the water by 2027.



And the first ones roll out of the slipways in 2038? That's about a decade too late for most of DOD.



Not enough to support both ships and yards. Which is why the tiny yards are being asked to make 2,000 ton battle robots.



If only we could find the sailors to man them and welders to make them...

The latter is less difficult, at least, but AFAIK only Bollinger/VT and FMM have actually been able to show their LUSVs.

US Navy Taps Six Firms for Large Drone Ship Concepts

The US Navy has asked Lockheed and five other companies to develop concepts for the service’s future large unmanned surface vessel.

thedefensepost.com

30 years ago there was no need to do any of that, again, you keep saying it’s impossible when it really isn’t. It just requires funding and political will.

The felon in chief is all talk on almost everything including increasing shipbuilding. He’ll just continue the Biden program and then take credit for the new ships started while he was in office.

First ones going down the slipways of smaller yards in 2038 is better than 2050.

As you said, this should have been focused on and started years ago, and if we don’t get started now, we or someone else will be having an almost identical conversation again in 2040 or 2060.
Getting started late is better than never starting at all.

Edit
As for finding sailors to man ships, again, easy raise pay. This is probably the easiest one to fix.
$10k signing bonus for all rates, base E1 pay $40k/year will attract a lot more people.
The military pays shit for the sacrifices you’re making in your life, especially the navy where you’ll spend 30-50% of your time between deployments at sea still.

 

[Kat Tsun]

30 years ago there was no need to do any of that, again, you keep saying it’s impossible when it really isn’t. It just requires funding and political will.

The US doesn't really have either of those, though. Which is why it's spent the past 30 years trying to make mega automated ships, failing, and is now just fully leaning into completely robotic combat systems. A manned ship less than 10,000 tons is a nigh comical anachronism outside the Coast Guard.

First ones going down the slipways of smaller yards in 2038 is better than 2050.

We'll probably need them before 2028 so it's a moot point.

As you said, this should have been focused on and started years ago, and if we don’t get started now, we or someone else will be having an almost identical conversation again in 2040 or 2060.

The question will be settled long before then.

Getting started late is better than never starting at all.

Your corvette idea is cool. You should make a 3D model of it and say the USN made them in the 1990s for anti-piracy operations or something. It's just not better than LUSV which is the actual small combatant meant to compete in the battle line with the Type 056s.

A manned ship of ~2,000 tons is a very PLA leaning idea these days.

 

[johnpjones1775]

The US doesn't really have either of those, though. Which is why it's spent the past 30 years trying to make mega automated ships, failing, and is now just fully leaning into completely robotic combat systems. A manned ship less than 10,000 tons is a nigh comical anachronism outside the Coast Guard.



We'll probably need them before 2028 so it's a moot point.



The question will be settled long before then.



Your corvette idea is cool. You should make a 3D model of it and say the USN made them in the 1990s for anti-piracy operations or something. It's just not better than LUSV which is the actual small combatant meant to compete in the battle line with the Type 056s.

A manned ship of ~2,000 tons is a very PLA leaning idea these days.

We’ve spent the last 30 years building big mega ships, because leadership didn’t see a need for a large fleet, and began drawing down, and retiring ships. The OHPs were all retired before they had a replacement.
The fall of the USSR is the reason why our shipbuilding plan has been what it has until recently.

Oh, we’ll need ships before 2028, and 2040 will be too late? I’d love to see your crystal ball.
Hell had we taken peer conflict and competition more seriously in 2014 we might be in a much better place by now.
The PLAN is no longer focused on building ships in the 2k range because they already have loads of them. Their focus is now catching up the the USN in terms of high end combatants.