Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook

A question for folks here:

With CEC, is it workable to cut the sensors on ships and rely on airborne sensors with the ships being mostly (cheap) ammo magazines? Airborne sensors are not limited by the horizon and the mobility contribute a lot to survivability. Ship based weapons can be used to shoot down threats to the sensor as well. With a lightweight ship to aircraft inflight refueling solution (for example V-22) the sensor aircraft can land based without design constrains for operating on ships.
 
shin_getter said:
A question for folks here:

With CEC, is it workable to cut the sensors on ships and rely on airborne sensors with the ships being mostly (cheap) ammo magazines? Airborne sensors are not limited by the horizon and the mobility contribute a lot to survivability. Ship based weapons can be used to shoot down threats to the sensor as well. With a lightweight ship to aircraft inflight refueling solution (for example V-22) the sensor aircraft can land based without design constrains for operating on ships.
Click to expand...
The uptime of any aircraft per day is a small fraction of 24 hrs. You can't have persistent watch using only aircraft.

Also, large sensors require a lot of power which is hard to fit into an aircraft. An/spy-1 requires 6MW, even though airborne sensor will provide increased directional awareness at lower consumption, it still isnt easy to put such a large sensor on an aircraft and operate it at the same cost.
 
The modern struggle of BMD does look like the original struggle against aircraft before missile technology: imo soon we'll be seeing the equivalent of a H-44 design.

If starship operating concepts work out at all, space will dominate surface navies and BMD would only be usable against non-peers. If we push the analogy further is the Chinese is building their version of plan-Z, though in this case they may have better odds at using it in "colonial" warfare.
 
Last edited:
Grey Havoc said:
The brass seem to be still obsessed with destroyers over cruisers, I see.
Click to expand...
Asides from the Flag-space and an SPS-49, what are the remaining distinctions between the CG-47's and DDG-51's? I'd like to see a return to form in something CGN-9 sized, but I'm doubting the budget will ever be there for it.
 
isayyo2 said:
Asides from the Flag-space and an SPS-49, what are the remaining distinctions between the CG-47's and DDG-51's?
Click to expand...
Things like extensive machine shops and spare parts storage for one thing. DDG-51's quite simply do not have the capability to maintain themselves at sea like a cruiser would. Not to mention logistics in general has increasingly become an ever more pressing issue for the class as post-Cold War & transformational era assumptions have continued to fall apart (ever more spectacularly in recent times). Of course things like the USN during the 1990s deciding to abandon all attempts to reload VLS at sea haven't helped matters at all. Indeed, with the way things are now, a new warship design needs far more VLS capacity (not to even mention other non-VLS weapons systems & associated muntions storage) than could be ever possibly squeezed into a warmed over DDG-51 hull. And that's even before you get to such things as sensors and power supplies.

The USN really needs a true cruiser design (preferably nuclear powered but a conventionally powered interim class could possibly work in the short term, as long as you keep the cult of transformation and such well away from design & construction!) yesterday!
 
Last edited:
bobbymike said:

Navy working to translate top-level DDG-X requirements into preliminary cost estimate, performance targets​

Navy leaders are working to translate recently set high-level requirements for a new Large Surface Combatant, recently dubbed DDG-X, into specific performance capabilities as well as draft a cost estimate in an effort to ready for industry a solicitation to design and build the follow-on warship to the DDG-51 Arleigh Burke-class fleet
Click to expand...
Something from behind the paywall -
The base capability is to be baseline 10 as compared to the AEGIS system.
 
Bhurki said:
bobbymike said:

Navy working to translate top-level DDG-X requirements into preliminary cost estimate, performance targets​

Navy leaders are working to translate recently set high-level requirements for a new Large Surface Combatant, recently dubbed DDG-X, into specific performance capabilities as well as draft a cost estimate in an effort to ready for industry a solicitation to design and build the follow-on warship to the DDG-51 Arleigh Burke-class fleet
Click to expand...
Something from behind the paywall -
The base capability is to be baseline 10 as compared to the AEGIS system.
Click to expand...

The latest version of the AEGIS Combat System is Baseline 10, due to reach IOC in 2023 aboard Flight III DDG-51s. So this is saying that the initial combat system configuration will be the same as the last Burke DDGs.

They are also aiming for a displacement between the Flight III (9700 tons) and the DDG-1000 (15700 tons).

news.usni.org

Overview of Future Large Surface Combatant (DDG Next) Program - USNI News

The following is the Jan. 12, 2021 Congressional Research Service In Focus report, Navy Future Large Surface Combatant (LSC) (DDG Next) Program: Background and Issues for Congress From the report The Navy’s Future Large Surface Combatant (LSC) program, also known as the DDG Next program...
news.usni.org news.usni.org
 
So nearly a decade after the first baseline 10 ship hits the water, the Navy will field a a new large surface combatant with exactly the same AEGIS baseline? And this is something that the Navy thinks is a positive from their approach rather than an embarrassment.
 
bring_it_on said:
So nearly a decade after the first baseline 10 ship hits the water, the Navy will field a a new large surface combatant with exactly the same AEGIS baseline? And this is something that the Navy thinks is a positive from their approach rather than an embarrassment.
Click to expand...

Well, at least they'll have a combat system that they know works. Also, it's possible they would be mating it to a larger radar array than the current DDGs.
 
TomS said:
bring_it_on said:
So nearly a decade after the first baseline 10 ship hits the water, the Navy will field a a new large surface combatant with exactly the same AEGIS baseline? And this is something that the Navy thinks is a positive from their approach rather than an embarrassment.
Click to expand...

Well, at least they'll have a combat system that they know works. Also, it's possible they would be mating it to a larger radar array than the current DDGs.
Click to expand...

I wasn't suggesting that they invent a completely new combat system for DDG-X. However, 10-12 years between the two classes probably warrants at least an iterative upgrade to the baseline that is currently being tested for the flight III Burke that is currently under construction. Perhaps they'll manage to get Baseline 11 or 12 by 2040. Why rush it when you can sit on it for a decade or two? I haven't heard anything about a larger radar for the LSC, though a generic AMDR reference could cover a different AMDR variant that has not yet been announced and funded.
 
isayyo2 said:
Grey Havoc said:
The brass seem to be still obsessed with destroyers over cruisers, I see.
Click to expand...
Asides from the Flag-space and an SPS-49, what are the remaining distinctions between the CG-47's and DDG-51's? I'd like to see a return to form in something CGN-9 sized, but I'm doubting the budget will ever be there for it.
Click to expand...
Separation between the fore/starboard and aft/port SPY-1 arrays and the second transmitter to support that separation is considered a desirable survivability feature, even in today's threat environment. SPY-6 is an AESA and so the transmitter situation is vastly different, but consider the cooling plants to keep those panels going. In Flight III, the power and cooling infrastructure for SPY-6 is fairly concentrated since the arrays are clustered forward on the deck house. A future "cruiser" program seeking greater survivability would not only move half the arrays themselves further aft, it also would split the power and cooling systems. Sure, a heavy torpedo under the keel or large enough missile renders that less effective, but drones and smaller missiles would be challenged to knock out all the ship's air defense radar in one go.
 
Last edited:
Grey Havoc said:
isayyo2 said:
Asides from the Flag-space and an SPS-49, what are the remaining distinctions between the CG-47's and DDG-51's?
Click to expand...
Things like extensive machine shops and spare parts storage for one thing. DDG-51's quite simply do not have the capability to maintain themselves at sea like a cruiser would. Not to mention logistics in general has increasingly become an ever more pressing issue for the class as post-Cold War & transformational era assumptions have continued to fall apart (ever more spectacularly in recent times). Of course things like the USN during the 1990s deciding to abandon all attempts to reload VLS at sea haven't helped matters at all. Indeed, with the way things are now, a new warship design needs far more VLS capacity (not to even mention other non-VLS weapons systems & associated muntions storage) than could be ever possibly squeezed into a warmed over DDG-51 hull. And that's even before you get to such things as sensors and power supplies.

The USN really needs a true cruiser design (preferably nuclear powered but a conventionally powered interim class could possibly work in the short term, as long as you keep the cult of transformation and such well away from design & construction!) yesterday!
Click to expand...
Ah, I wasn't aware that the Tico's had extensive shop spaces. I was alway under the assumption the Navy slapped on the flag spaces onto DDG-47 and called it a day!
 
From the article:
The DDG(X) program, formerly called Large Surface Combatant or DDG Next, is among the first major programs that will go through this new process under a senior tech authority. Its topline requirements were just approved by Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Mike Gilday at the end of 2020, NAVSEA Commander Vice Adm. Bill Galinis said during a separate panel at the ASNE event. Filling said the Navy is already trying to minimize risk on the program, even ahead of bringing in industry and starting a competition.

The service has an evolved design based on both the Arleigh Burke-class and Zumwalt-class destroyers, and “that model and the frigate are trading time in the tank off and on, so the Carderock team is working on many ships to keep up with our requests,” Filling said.

Filling added that his team also has an evolved design of an integrated power system that takes lessons from the Zumwalt destroyer, the Ford-class aircraft carrier and the Columbia-class submarine. DDG(X) will ultimately have a next-generation IPS – informed by these three current programs but not a duplicate of any single one – to meet the Navy’s vision for how DDG(X) should operate.

“We definitely feel it’s going to be an IPS, we’ve decided on that. We have not decided on the particular plant, we’re still exploring options. So we’re open to new ideas,” Filling said.
Click to expand...
'Surface Ship Renaissance', they claim. Ye gods.
 
news.usni.org

Wittman: HASC Republicans Will Keep Up Push for Larger Navy - USNI News

Republicans on the House Armed Services Committee will maintain their focus on building a larger Navy to counter China in the Indo-Pacific, the panel’s new number-two Republican told USNI News. Rep. Rob Wittman (R-Va.) said that, while the new Biden administration will want to evaluate the plans...
news.usni.org news.usni.org
 
I suppose we are looking a new line of surface escorts being proposed. What about the other parts of the convoy system, are there investments for them proposed? I don't think placing a carriers within striking distance is a sufficient condition for winning the war.

Stuff like CEC containerized self defense systems, basic ship hardening and damage control on transports all have potential for good "Bang for the buck" in increasing survivability and success rates over diminishing returns on investing in major escort capability.

Would suck to lose 300k tons due to a C-802 leaker because no damage control. With that kind of vulnerability, even Japan will be feeling the pain.
----
Not sure how crazy the battle to resupply Taiwan would be, if it ever comes down to that. Would probably make Op. Pedestal look like a picnic against even quite degraded Chinese capabilities.
 
Last edited:
Realistically the US is going to have to look at deterrence as a solution rather than convoy escort. It would be far easier for the US to sink every Chinese flagged ship around the world than resupply Taiwan.
 
jsport said:
news.usni.org

Navy to Field Early 'Project Overmatch' Battle Network on Theodore Roosevelt CSG in 2023 - USNI News

This post has been updated to clarify remarks made by Rear Adm. Doug Small. The Navy envisions a future fleet with manned and unmanned ships, submarines and aircraft operating in a dispersed manner and collecting a ton of data to fill in a common operating picture – which operational commanders...
news.usni.org news.usni.org
Click to expand...
Why do I get the feeling that the 'Naval Operational Architecture' is going to be yet another disaster?
 
I am baffled by this subject. The USN has over 30 modern nuclear attack submarines at its disposal against a Chinese Navy with no operational ASW experience and a handful of noisy SSNs. You can then add the Japanese MSDF with its modern silent conventional subs.
Any large assembly of Chinese vessels can be sunk quickly and with no need to use surface assets or carrier airpower.
It took most of the best ASW assets in NATO to counter the Soviet Northern Fleet's noisy SSNs.
 
uk 75 said:
I am baffled by this subject. The USN has over 30 modern nuclear attack submarines at its disposal against a Chinese Navy with no operational ASW experience and a handful of noisy SSNs. You can then add the Japanese MSDF with its modern silent conventional subs.
Any large assembly of Chinese vessels can be sunk quickly and with no need to use surface assets or carrier airpower.
It took most of the best ASW assets in NATO to counter the Soviet Northern Fleet's noisy SSNs.
Click to expand...
The one area I think the US has the largest overmatch is SSNs and SSGNs (and submarine tech in general including SSBNs whose mission is singular) over China. I’d be building as many submarines as I could and have a duel production line of one Columbia for nukes, one for conventional strike next to it. Notwithstanding this is probably a budgetary fantasy.
 
bobbymike said:
uk 75 said:
I am baffled by this subject. The USN has over 30 modern nuclear attack submarines at its disposal against a Chinese Navy with no operational ASW experience and a handful of noisy SSNs. You can then add the Japanese MSDF with its modern silent conventional subs.
Any large assembly of Chinese vessels can be sunk quickly and with no need to use surface assets or carrier airpower.
It took most of the best ASW assets in NATO to counter the Soviet Northern Fleet's noisy SSNs.
Click to expand...
The one area I think the US has the largest overmatch is SSNs and SSGNs (and submarine tech in general including SSBNs whose mission is singular) over China. I’d be building as many submarines as I could and have a duel production line of one Columbia for nukes, one for conventional strike next to it. Notwithstanding this is probably a budgetary fantasy.
Click to expand...

It's also an industrial base issue. We can only build so many submarines at a time and "so many" is a very small number.
 
Maybe true but the PLAN has a few years to go before they can build a Virginia SSN so the US has quite a headstart.
 
Life was simpker dealing with the clear task of getting US reinforcements to Europe across the Atlantic in the face of Soviet naval and air power. Fewer forces were slated to reinforce Japan and Korea so the Pacific was more carrier strikes against the Soviet Navy.
Apart from asserting international rights of maritime passage against China the role of US surface forces is unclear. No major ground reinforcements are likely to go to Taiwan or Japan. South Korea is perhaps likely to get some but would this involve a clash with the PLAN.
 
www.forbes.com

‘Siri, Find Me A Russian Submarine,’ U.S. Navy Asks

Virtual assistants -- like those on your smartphone -- can help U.S. Navy crews detect and destroy enemy submarines.
www.forbes.com www.forbes.com

The Navy wants a virtual assistant — like the ones found on consumer smartphones — to help overloaded sonar operators manage multiple anti-submarine warfare (ASW) systems. In particular, active sonar on Navy cruisers and destroyers come with a variety of settings. “This includes employment decisions such as changing the operational mode between pulsed active sonar (PAS) and continuous active sonar (CAS) as well as changing waveform and various other system settings,” according to the Navy research solicitation. “Operators must conduct sonar analysis of resulting sonar returns and interpret them based on the sonar settings and the environment.”

This is where a Siri-like assistant would come in handy. The AI would use sensor data and monitoring of environmental conditions to recommend optimum sonar employment, and to assess potential moves of the enemy sub. The system would provide sonar operators with “situational awareness regarding key parameters such as primary propagation path(s), bearing-dependent complications (such as sea mounts that might obscure threats), significant topology features into which a threat might retreat to minimize detection, best tactical waveforms, and situational best practices to enable operators to maximize the potential of the tactical sonar suite for the specific conditions present at that time and location.
The Navy is hoping to see at least a 25 percent gain in active sonar efficiency by employing a virtual assistant.

Phase I of the project calls for developing an AI architecture and algorithms. Phase II calls for testing the virtual assistant on the hull-mounted sonar fitted to Navy cruisers and destroyers, as well as the Variable Depth Sonar on Littoral Combat Ships.
Click to expand...
Hmmmm.
 
Heritage Foundation’s take on getting to a bigger navy

www.heritage.org

Rebuilding America’s Military: The United States Navy

The Rebuilding America’s Military Project This Special Report is the fifth in a series from the Rebuilding America’s Military Project of The Heritage Foundation’s Center for National Defense, which addresses the U.S. military’s efforts to prepare for future challenges and rebuild a military...
www.heritage.org www.heritage.org
 
With respect to the point on self sustainability at sea, is there any thought to placing 3d printers on board? Possibly easier than having a large spare parts inventory.
 
Foo Fighter said:
With respect to the point on self sustainability at sea, is there any thought to placing 3d printers on board? Possibly easier than having a large spare parts inventory.
Click to expand...

Yes.

https://3dprint.com/225576/3d-printing-navy-ships/

Note that in the first case here, they used 3d printing to build a mockup of the part, which served as a fit-test model for conventionally machining the actual part. Because a 3d printed part aren't always as strong as a part machined out of monolithic stock.
 
Last edited:
not sure if this is the right thread
but there were some videos out this month on youtube that talked about the debate over small carriers in the USN

basically
one side thinks: small carriers disperse risk better as well as being more cost effective. its often cited china's proposed small carrier (which launches UCAVS) as an example
the other side thinks: small carriers are a waste of resources that could other wise be diverted to improving large ones

any thoughts?
 
helmutkohl said:
not sure if this is the right thread
but there were some videos out this month on youtube that talked about the debate over small carriers in the USN

basically
one side thinks: small carriers disperse risk better as well as being more cost effective. its often cited china's proposed small carrier (which launches UCAVS) as an example
the other side thinks: small carriers are a waste of resources that could other wise be diverted to improving large ones

any thoughts?
Click to expand...
Check out bobbbymike's post #755 right above us; The Heritage Foundation recommends a few "CVNE" carries that embark One F-35 squadron and multiple drone squadrons for Strike and ISR. I'm inclined to agree that their concept is very valid and should be pursued.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom