Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook

[bobbymike]

https://news.usni.org/2017/02/07/build-355-ship-navy-at-various-speeds

 

[bobbymike]

http://csbaonline.org/research/publications/restoring-american-seapower-a-new-fleet-architecture-for-the-united-states-

http://csbaonline.org/uploads/documents/CSBA6224-Fleet_Architecture_Study_WEB.pdf

 

[NeilChapman]

http://csbaonline.org/research/publications/restoring-american-seapower-a-new-fleet-architecture-for-the-united-states-

http://csbaonline.org/uploads/documents/CSBA6224-Fleet_Architecture_Study_WEB.pdf

I like the suggestion of qty 10 CVL to augment 12 CVN's. LHA's are great but would like to see arresting gear and catapult added to broaden their utility - something about the size of British QE-class.

Navy really needs to either expand the public yards or learn how to work efficiently with civilian yards. If you can't fix what you've got...

 

[marauder2048]

One of the arguments is that EMALS reduces the wind-over-deck requirements to the point where
a conventionally powered carrier can conduct launch operations without adversely impacting its fuel
stores.

 

[NeilChapman]

One of the arguments is that EMALS reduces the wind-over-deck requirements to the point where
a conventionally powered carrier can conduct launch operations without adversely impacting its fuel
stores.

Ahhh. Didn't know that. Would it be true that a CVL wouldn't need to be maintained in a public yard?

Document also calls for new frigate and patrol craft.
"
In the proposed architecture, the LCS/FF program would be truncated as soon as the design of a new FFG is ready to build. This would ideally be in FY19, but may be FY20 or FY21. The 4000- to 5000-ton FFG would be designed with the endurance to accompany the Maneuver Force or for convoy escort; an active and passive EW suite; an ASW suite including a VDS sonar and passive towed array; and a 16- to 32-cell VLS magazine with ESSM for medium- range area air defense, long-range surface-to-surface missiles, and a stando ASW weapon capable of quickly putting a submarine on the defensive more than 50 nm away.
"

Sounds a lot like the Legend-class National Security Cutter-based Patrol Frigate 4921 concept.

http://www.defensemedianetwork.com/stories/patrol-frigate-concepts-from-huntington-ingalls-industries-gain-traction-internationally/

 

[bobbymike]

http://breakingdefense.com/2017/02/414-ships-no-lcs-mitres-alternative-navy/

The Navy needs a vastly larger fleet — 414 warships — to win a great-power war, well above today’s 274 ships or even the Navy’s unfunded plan for 355, the think-tank MITRE calculates in a congressionally-chartered study. That ideal fleet would include:

14 aircraft carriers instead of today’s 11;
160 cruisers and destroyers instead of 84;
72 attack submarines instead of today’s 52;

New classes ranging from a missile-packed “magazine ship,” to diesel-powered submarines, to a heavy frigate to replace the Littoral Combat Ship, which would be cancelled.

 

[NeilChapman]

LCS is ~USD400M without a mission module? Latest funded DDG (2016) was USD644M without government furnished systems.

As LX(R) is a modified San Antonio-class, why not consider an AWS-less variant of DDG-51 as FFG's or Destroyer Escorts? It's a bit bigger than what they want as a frigate but you could pack it with ordinance. And it has a 5" gun for potential HVP use in future. It's also tough as a pine knot and has a hot production line at two shipyards.

Is it possible to strip out the AWS out and use it as a FFG/DE?

 

[NeilChapman]

Nice thread on proposed frigate 4921 referenced a couple of posts back.

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,10964.0.html

 

[marauder2048]

I found this claim from the CSBA report curious

"To minimize the UCAV’s radar signature, it would likely have a “flying wing”
structure like a B-2 bomber or the TERN UAV (see Figure 46) that lacks traditional wings
or a tail. This design reduces the number of surfaces that can reflect radar energy, but also
reduces the aircraft’s lift and, in turn, payload or endurance. Therefore, the UCAV would not
have the very long endurance and high payload capacity desired for refueling, logistics, or
surveillance missions."

 

[NeilChapman]

I found this claim from the CSBA report curious

"To minimize the UCAV’s radar signature, it would likely have a “flying wing”
structure like a B-2 bomber or the TERN UAV (see Figure 46) that lacks traditional wings
or a tail. This design reduces the number of surfaces that can reflect radar energy, but also
reduces the aircraft’s lift and, in turn, payload or endurance. Therefore, the UCAV would not
have the very long endurance and high payload capacity desired for refueling, logistics, or
surveillance missions."

I think they mucked this up. The paragraph has a footnote that is the article below.

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/are-us-fighter-jets-about-become-obsolete-12612

Which in turn references another CSBA report.

http://csbaonline.org/uploads/documents/Air-to-Air-Report-.pdf

which states in the abstract...

"
This transformation may be steadily reducing the utility of some attributes traditionally associated with fighter aircraft (e.g., extreme speed and maneuverability) while increasing the value of attributes not usually associated with fighter aircraft (e.g., sensor and weapon payload as well as range).
"

Which is somewhat different than paragraph you referenced.

 

[bobbymike]

http://www.realcleardefense.com/2017/02/12/will_the_us_navy_build_quotlightquot_aircraft_carriers_290300.html

 

[marauder2048]

And it has a 5" gun for potential HVP use in future.

From Hyper Velocity Projectile Industry Day Notice:


- HVP BLK 0 will provide Initial Operational Capability (IOC) for the 5" MK 45 MOD 4 Gun Mount emplaced on Aegis Weapon System equipped DDG-51 Class Destroyers and CG-47 Class Cruisers.

- The US Navy is currently planning for an IOC during 4QFY23 for HVP BLK 0.

- HVP BLK 0 will provide a prime weapon foundation for future HVP capability upgrades as new platform sensors or gun launch systems are fielded by the US Navy.

- Building on previous HVP risk reduction efforts, the E&MD prime weapons vendor will define the HVP BLK 0 tactical architecture in order to meet the HVP BLK 0 Performance Specification, Interface Control Documentation, and Aegis Weapon System integration requirements.

- The US Navy is planning for contractor development of the HVP BLK 0 projectile and propelling charge as an integrated system.

- The US Navy plans to provide an HVP BLK 0 life-cycle container as GFE.

- The US Navy plans to utilize the MK 160 Fire Control System and conduct MK 45 Gun Mount Ordnance Alterations (ORDALTs) to integrate HVP BLK 0. An Interface Control Working Group (led by the US Navy) will be developed as part of the HVP BLK 0 E&MD phase in order to arrive at a final HVP BLK 0 to MK 45 Gun Mount Interface Control Document.

- The US Navy is currently conducting trade studies and analysis to finalize HVP BLK 0 requirements generation. The final HVP BLK 0 performance requirements will be detailed in a performance specification which will be released at a later date.

- The HVP BLK 0 will provide a maximum range of 26 nautical miles (nmi) or greater.

 

[NeilChapman]

And it has a 5" gun for potential HVP use in future.

From Hyper Velocity Projectile Industry Day Notice:


- HVP BLK 0 will provide Initial Operational Capability (IOC) for the 5" MK 45 MOD 4 Gun Mount emplaced on Aegis Weapon System equipped DDG-51 Class Destroyers and CG-47 Class Cruisers.

- The US Navy is currently planning for an IOC during 4QFY23 for HVP BLK 0.

- HVP BLK 0 will provide a prime weapon foundation for future HVP capability upgrades as new platform sensors or gun launch systems are fielded by the US Navy.

- Building on previous HVP risk reduction efforts, the E&MD prime weapons vendor will define the HVP BLK 0 tactical architecture in order to meet the HVP BLK 0 Performance Specification, Interface Control Documentation, and Aegis Weapon System integration requirements.

- The US Navy is planning for contractor development of the HVP BLK 0 projectile and propelling charge as an integrated system.

- The US Navy plans to provide an HVP BLK 0 life-cycle container as GFE.

- The US Navy plans to utilize the MK 160 Fire Control System and conduct MK 45 Gun Mount Ordnance Alterations (ORDALTs) to integrate HVP BLK 0. An Interface Control Working Group (led by the US Navy) will be developed as part of the HVP BLK 0 E&MD phase in order to arrive at a final HVP BLK 0 to MK 45 Gun Mount Interface Control Document.

- The US Navy is currently conducting trade studies and analysis to finalize HVP BLK 0 requirements generation. The final HVP BLK 0 performance requirements will be detailed in a performance specification which will be released at a later date.

- The HVP BLK 0 will provide a maximum range of 26 nautical miles (nmi) or greater.

I've been looking to see if the Navy ever considered an AWS-less DDG-51 variant as an FFG. Found some others that have opined a similar solution.

http://nextnavy.com/time-to-consider-a-low-end-littoral-operations-variant-ddg-51/

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,14608.15.html gibbs&cox 3500t frigate design discussion

 

[bobbymike]

From Inside Defense:

Navy expects to finalize initial requirement for future surface combatant by July

February 15, 2017

The Navy has determined three types of vessels it would develop as part of future surface combatant programs, and the service expects to complete the initial capabilities document for the family of vessels by July, according to officials.

The Navy finished a capabilities based assessment last October, and the study concluded that the future surface combatant would come in a family of three types of ship -- large surface combatants, small surface combatants and unmanned integrated capabilities, according to Capt. Chris Sweeney, deputy for Aegis BMD and destroyer programs at the Navy's surface warfare directorate (N96).

The service is planning to conduct a war game examining the notional ships within the context of future fleet architectures this June, Sweeney said during a Feb. 15 panel discussion at an American Society of Naval Engineers conference in Arlington, VA.

The Navy then plans to finalize the future surface combatant initial capabilities document this July, according to Sweeney. In the Defense Department's acquisition process, the ICD documents the need for a system or set of systems to fill a specific capability gap.

Sweeney said the Navy would then conduct an analysis of alternatives for each of the three groups before making a material development decision in early 2018.

A key part of informing requirements and development of the future surface combatant platforms will be a developmental surface squadron the Navy plans to establish within the next few years, Sweeney told reporters following the panel discussion. The squadron will be based in San Diego, CA, and could involve a range of available ships and capabilities such as unmanned vessels, the Littoral Combat Ship and the Zumwalt-class guided missile destroyer.

"We really think the developmental squadron piece, it's key for us as we go forward with the future surface combatant," Sweeney said. He added that the squadron isn't funded yet and will likely be included in the Navy's five-year spending plan for fiscal year 2019.

The future surface combatants are expected to first replace the Navy's Ticonderoga-class cruisers and Arleigh Burke-class destroyers, both of which will begin retiring in the mid-2030s. The program will also eventually replace the Navy's Littoral Combat Ships.

Vice Adm. Thomas Moore, the head of Naval Sea Systems command, pointed to the time line for retiring cruisers and destroyers as the reason to move forward on the future surface combatant.

"We've got a time frame here and we've got to work our way through systematically what we're going to do," Moore told reporters following a separate presentation at the Feb. 15 conference. "We're going to have to make some decisions here before 2020 about what this thing is going to look like."

The three-star also emphasized the importance of taking into account past lessons learned about pursuing too many new technologies in newly designed ships.

NAVSEA will have a hand in helping the chief of naval operations' office shape the future surface combatant requirements through its engineering directorate. Steve Wynn, future ship and force architecture director for the NAVSEA engineering directorate, said his office is "advising" OPNAV on different aspects of the requirements.

Wynn highlighted how unmanned platforms will play a much greater role in the future surface force.

"We're looking at a much greater emphasis on unmanned platforms," he said during the Feb. 15 panel discussion.

Medium-sized unmanned surface vessels (USV) are considered viable unmanned integrated capabilities under the envisioned future surface combatant capabilities, according to Jonathan Rucker, program manager for unmanned maritime systems at the program executive office for LCS.

The Office of Naval Research is expected to gain ownership of a medium-sized USV later this year. The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency developed the "Sea Hunter" as a medium-sized USV capable of autonomously tracking submarines. The technology will officially transition into ONR's portfolio this April, Rucker said, and the Navy will further develop concepts of operation for the medium-sized USV.

But the unmanned integrated capabilities portion of the future surface combatant program is still open-ended, and it could also include aerial and undersea platforms, not just surface vessels, according to Sweeney.

"We're not at the platform level yet, but we have a lot to learn in the unmanned space, and we want to bring this all together in integrated combat systems," he said.

 

[TomS]

I've been looking to see if the Navy ever considered an AWS-less DDG-51 variant as an FFG. Found some others that have opined a similar solution.

http://nextnavy.com/time-to-consider-a-low-end-littoral-operations-variant-ddg-51/

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,14608.15.html gibbs&cox 3500t frigate design discussion

Somewhere I have Navy drawings of a non-AEGIS DDG-51 design, but it was early on and I think based around New Threat Upgrade. Basically, it was a DDG for end users who would not be allowed to buy AEGIS when it was still tightly controlled.

Problem is that it's a very expensive ship to build and run, even not including SPY-1. Four large turbines, 90+ VLS tubes, crew of 300+, roughly 9000 tons full load. (That Next navy article is pretty tricky, citing light ship displacement for the DDG with either standard of full load for the other designs).

 

[bobbymike]

http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2017/02/another-plan-for-larger-future-us-navy.html

 

[NeilChapman]

I've been looking to see if the Navy ever considered an AWS-less DDG-51 variant as an FFG. Found some others that have opined a similar solution.

http://nextnavy.com/time-to-consider-a-low-end-littoral-operations-variant-ddg-51/

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,14608.15.html gibbs&cox 3500t frigate design discussion

Somewhere I have Navy drawings of a non-AEGIS DDG-51 design, but it was early on and I think based around New Threat Upgrade. Basically, it was a DDG for end users who would not be allowed to buy AEGIS when it was still tightly controlled.

Problem is that it's a very expensive ship to build and run, even not including SPY-1. Four large turbines, 90+ VLS tubes, crew of 300+, roughly 9000 tons full load. (That Next navy article is pretty tricky, citing light ship displacement for the DDG with either standard of full load for the other designs).

Man, I hope you find the drawing. Cool. I'm interested in the structures.

I get it. It's "seemingly" expensive to build and run.

- but -

Not really that expensive to build. ~650M vs ~400M for LCS. But that acquisition cost difference is deceiving especially considering the DDG is built to Survivability Level II and LCS is SL1. DDG-51 Service Life is 40 years whereas LCS Service Life is ~25 years. So that's a 250k annual difference amortized over the life of the ship. Also, can't make enough of the fact that there exists two hot production lines. With inflation, the cost has actually dropped over the last few years. Increase production from ~2 to 4 per year. That would keep pace w/~140 combined DDG & FFG's w/a 40yr lifespan.

Expensive to run? LCS has too few sailors, everyone agrees. Not a good comparison. Can more automation be designed into the ddg-51 frame? More than likely. Make it a focus of Flight IV to reduce manning by 15%. No need to get crazy, just figure it out using the 80% rule. Four turbines, yes. It can run with the battle group. Never know when you might need to tow a LHA as part of an ARG. Perhaps a hybrid-electric drive? Meh. Oil is cheap today.

--

It doesn't make sense to add in the cost of weapons systems in the decision making process. You add in what you need for a Frigate or Destroyer Escort mission. It's easier to add weapons when you have more space.

--

Room to accommodate both Helo and MALE UAV operations. Not so w/LCS.

LCS was a "post cold-war" idea but the mission has now fundamentally changed. Too expensive to be a patrol craft and too emasculated to be a proper FFG/DE. Time to move on.

Attached a great picture of what I would consider a great beginning to a future ARG. A CVL, some cruisers, supply ships and an "assault support" ship out front.

 

[Moose]

I'd be careful with the 650 million figure, Neil, it is doing you a disservice.

 

[NeilChapman]

I'd be careful with the 650 million figure, Neil, it is doing you a disservice.

Well...I did add the tilde.

http://www.upi.com/Defense-News/2016/04/04/Navy-fully-funds-new-Arleigh-Burke-class-destroyer/5861459795804/

https://www.law360.com/articles/778704/bath-iron-works-huntington-ingalls-nab-1-2b-for-navy-ships

http://newsroom.huntingtoningalls.com/releases/ingalls-shipbuilding-awarded-618-million-contract-to-build-ddg-123-3433700

Shall we make it 673M?

 

[TomS]

I'd be careful with the 650 million figure, Neil, it is doing you a disservice.

Well...I did add the tilde.

http://www.upi.com/Defense-News/2016/04/04/Navy-fully-funds-new-Arleigh-Burke-class-destroyer/5861459795804/

https://www.law360.com/articles/778704/bath-iron-works-huntington-ingalls-nab-1-2b-for-navy-ships

http://newsroom.huntingtoningalls.com/releases/ingalls-shipbuilding-awarded-618-million-contract-to-build-ddg-123-3433700

Shall we make it 673M?

Those are simply shipbuilding costs, not including any Government Furnished Equipment, which includes all of the combat systems, the engines, the reduction gearing, etc. Total procurement cost for a DDG is at least twice that, and only a couple hundred million is specific to AEGIS.

 

[bobbymike]

https://news.usni.org/2017/02/21/wargames-future-surface-combatant-requirements

 

[NeilChapman]

I'd be careful with the 650 million figure, Neil, it is doing you a disservice.

Well...I did add the tilde.

http://www.upi.com/Defense-News/2016/04/04/Navy-fully-funds-new-Arleigh-Burke-class-destroyer/5861459795804/

https://www.law360.com/articles/778704/bath-iron-works-huntington-ingalls-nab-1-2b-for-navy-ships

http://newsroom.huntingtoningalls.com/releases/ingalls-shipbuilding-awarded-618-million-contract-to-build-ddg-123-3433700

Shall we make it 673M?

Those are simply shipbuilding costs, not including any Government Furnished Equipment, which includes all of the combat systems, the engines, the reduction gearing, etc. Total procurement cost for a DDG is at least twice that, and only a couple hundred million is specific to AEGIS.

I get it. That's the point. Take out the GFE and the shipbuilding costs between a (Survivability Level II) AB-class is not that significantly different than an LCS (Survivability Level I) over the expected life of the ship (40y vs 25y).

Use the AB-Class as the starting point for a new FFG/DE. Then decide what the GFE will be for that particular requirement. Much as the SA-Class was used as the starting point for the new LX(R).

Using the AB-Class and building more - from 2 per year today to 4 per year - split between AB and the FFG/DE variant will reduce cost and provide a more lethal power projection. Also makes training, support and maintenance less complicated - and less expensive.

Is there any insight into the costs of the engines? If they're not included in AB then is that cost not included for the LCS?

 

[TomS]

Here is a cost breakdown for the DDG-51

http://www.fi-aeroweb.com/Defense/Budget-Data/FY2016/DDG-51-NAVY-SHIP-FY2016.pdf

I don't actually see the engines separately here. They may be in the main construction line after all. But you can see that Aegis only contributes about $130 million out of a final per-ship price of about $1.4 billion.

Here is the equivalent document for LCS

http://www.fi-aeroweb.com/Defense/Budget-Data/FY2016/LCS-NAVY-SHIP-FY2016.pdf

Interestingly, there are fewer separate program line items for the combat system and armament. Some of that is bought separately but here is also more rolled into the main construction contracts, it appears.

 

[NeilChapman]

Here is a cost breakdown for the DDG-51

http://www.fi-aeroweb.com/Defense/Budget-Data/FY2016/DDG-51-NAVY-SHIP-FY2016.pdf

I don't actually see the engines separately here. They may be in the main construction line after all. But you can see that Aegis only contributes about $130 million out of a final per-ship price of about $1.4 billion.

Here is the equivalent document for LCS

http://www.fi-aeroweb.com/Defense/Budget-Data/FY2016/LCS-NAVY-SHIP-FY2016.pdf

Interestingly, there are fewer separate program line items for the combat system and armament. Some of that is bought separately but here is also more rolled into the main construction contracts, it appears.

Thanks Tom! I'm just getting into these documents. I'm not following $130M for AWS? I'm looking at page 8-8 of the first document. It reads AWS was ~$253M in '14 and $627M (Qty2) in '16.

N

 

[bobbymike]

https://news.usni.org/2017/02/22/nifc-ca-advances-could-allow-the-navy-to-use-cheaper-dumb-weapons

 

[TomS]

Here is a cost breakdown for the DDG-51

http://www.fi-aeroweb.com/Defense/Budget-Data/FY2016/DDG-51-NAVY-SHIP-FY2016.pdf

I don't actually see the engines separately here. They may be in the main construction line after all. But you can see that Aegis only contributes about $130 million out of a final per-ship price of about $1.4 billion.

Here is the equivalent document for LCS

http://www.fi-aeroweb.com/Defense/Budget-Data/FY2016/LCS-NAVY-SHIP-FY2016.pdf

Interestingly, there are fewer separate program line items for the combat system and armament. Some of that is bought separately but here is also more rolled into the main construction contracts, it appears.

Thanks Tom! I'm just getting into these documents. I'm not following $130M for AWS? I'm looking at page 8-8 of the first document. It reads AWS was ~$253M in '14 and $627M (Qty2) in '16.

N

Look at the line items on 8-15. The $131 million figure is the "major hardware" line. You could add the System Integration line, which would be about $30-40 mil per ship. A lot of the rest is basically constant year-to year regardless of how many ship sets they buy, so that's really AEGIS program overhead, not specific to any single ship. Spares should be applied across the fleet, not just for the ship currently being built.

 

[bobbymike]

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/blog/Lists/Posts/Post.aspx?ID=2423

Navy drafting 30 year R&D plan.

 

[NeilChapman]

Here is a cost breakdown for the DDG-51

http://www.fi-aeroweb.com/Defense/Budget-Data/FY2016/DDG-51-NAVY-SHIP-FY2016.pdf

I don't actually see the engines separately here. They may be in the main construction line after all. But you can see that Aegis only contributes about $130 million out of a final per-ship price of about $1.4 billion.

Here is the equivalent document for LCS

http://www.fi-aeroweb.com/Defense/Budget-Data/FY2016/LCS-NAVY-SHIP-FY2016.pdf

Interestingly, there are fewer separate program line items for the combat system and armament. Some of that is bought separately but here is also more rolled into the main construction contracts, it appears.

Thanks Tom! I'm just getting into these documents. I'm not following $130M for AWS? I'm looking at page 8-8 of the first document. It reads AWS was ~$253M in '14 and $627M (Qty2) in '16.

N

Look at the line items on 8-15. The $131 million figure is the "major hardware" line. You could add the System Integration line, which would be about $30-40 mil per ship. A lot of the rest is basically constant year-to year regardless of how many ship sets they buy, so that's really AEGIS program overhead, not specific to any single ship. Spares should be applied across the fleet, not just for the ship currently being built.

But it is the $'s spent in support of the AWS on that ship, agreed?

 

[TomS]

No, I wouldn't. The spares and other overhead lines would be paid even if there was no new Aegis ship being built in a given year. Those costs aren't tied to the ship.

 

[NeilChapman]

No, I wouldn't. The spares and other overhead lines would be paid even if there was no new Aegis ship being built in a given year. Those costs aren't tied to the ship.

The "spares and other overhead lines" required for DDG-51 program would be purchased by the DDG-51 program, whether or not a ship was built in a given year. I get that. But if you're building a FFG/DE variant (for our discussion I'll refer to it as FFG/DE-51) that would be a separate and distinct program. A separate program even though it's based on the same "hull"

The FFG/DE-51 would not include AWS. Thus the program would not include "spares and other overhead lines" for items not part of the program, no? In this case, "spares and other overhead lines" in support of AWS.

 

[NeilChapman]

I've pulled out some number from the links TomS provided. Thanks T!

The numbers are from 2013 and 2015. The effort was to look at ships from the same budget year. Also to look at effects of multiple purchase and, perhaps, maturity of program.

Showed costs w/o Ordnance and w/o Ordnance and Electronics to try and get at basic ship costs.

Also divided costs over the expected life of the ship (LCS=25, DDG=40).


--
Couple of questions for those "in the know".

1. What is included in the "PLAN COSTS"?
2. And how do "PLAN COSTS" increase from $22M to $34M in two years? These are all Flight IIA ships. I don't get it.
3. How is it that a ship you've built 40 times consistently needs ~$20M in change orders?
4. How do HM&E costs, again, on ships built 40 times, increase from $67M to ~$80M in two years?

 

[bobbymike]

https://www.defensetech.org/2017/02/25/navy-wants-money-new-technology/?ESRC=deftech.sm

http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2017/02/future-us-navy-plans-are-all-about.html

MITRE's future navy plan has a concept called the "Magazine Ship." The MGX would carry up to 4 railguns, 1,000 missile silos, or 96 Pershing-III intermediate range ballistic—or some mix.

Three new navy plans all are focused on more ships, with more missiles, more drones and more planes. Lethality is increased with more missiles, more planes and more drones. The total number of weapons are increased and they are put on more ships.

Adding three small carriers would double the number of planes and drones in a carrier group.

I can get on board

https://news.usni.org/2017/02/14/trio-of-studies-look-to-the-u-s-navy-fleet-of-2030

 

[NeilChapman]

I asked the questions below and have found some information to begin understanding them.

The answers are from
http://www.navsea.navy.mil/Portals/103/Documents/05C/2005_NAVSEA_CEH_Final.pdf

--
Couple of questions for those "in the know".

1. What is included in the "PLAN COSTS"?

"The Construction Plans category is the second major shipbuilding segment of the cost estimate. This category includes the nonrecurring costs related to detailed construction plans and other associated engineering tasks for lead ships. Planning yard, lead yard, and follow yard costs for ship classes may also be accounted for in this category or in the Basic Construction category."

Well, this isn't a lead ship by any stretch. Seems like this is a convenient line item to insert ship building costs w/o having them shown on the Basic Construction line item.

2. And how do "PLAN COSTS" increase from $22M to $34M in two years? These are all Flight IIA ships. I don't get it.

Still don't get it. It would be nice to have some detail. They built three ships in 2013 and two in 2015. Not sure how you incur $12M of additional yard costs w/one less ship.

3. How is it that a ship you've built 40 times consistently needs ~$20M in change orders?

Looks like they take a percentage for "budgeting" purposes. Seems pretty high for an established ship design.

I'd rather see a project risk % added to the program but seems like that's what this is being used for.

4. How do HM&E costs, again, on ships built 40 times, increase from $67M to ~$80M in two years?

I get the fact that there are cost savings for multiple purchases but it seems like a very significant increase for building one less ship.

 

[marauder2048]

MITRE's future navy plan has a concept called the "Magazine Ship." The MGX would carry up to 4 railguns, 1,000 missile silos, or 96 Pershing-III intermediate range ballistic—or some mix.

Might want to look at conventionally powered SSGNs at that point instead of
putting several billion dollars of high-end munitions on a converted fleet oiler that's
got very limited self-defense capability (SeaRAM + Nulka).

MITRE study attached.

 

[bobbymike]

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/the-us-navys-big-problem-it-needs-more-ships-think-aircraft-19677

 

[marauder2048]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9PRKI8cDn0

 

[bring_it_on]

I would love if someone asked Bryan Clark about which $500,000 short ballistic Missile Defense interceptor he keeps referring to.

 

[marauder2048]

I would love if someone asked Bryan Clark about which $500,000 short ballistic Missile Defense interceptor he keeps referring to.

At a guess, ESSM Block II. It's supposed to have some capability against ASBMs.

 

[bring_it_on]

I would love if someone asked Bryan Clark about which $500,000 short ballistic Missile Defense interceptor he keeps referring to.

At a guess, ESSM Block II. It's supposed to have some capability against ASBMs.

But even the Block I doesn't cost half a million Also, he keeps saying lets swap in these $500,000 missiles for Sm2's or Sm6s. Not sure of the SM2 but the Sm6 has intercepted MRBM's, precisely in the DF-21 range class. Although one could hypothetically make dual or quad packed shorter ranged missile to defeat such a threat it is unlikely to cost in the half a million $ class. You'd need something like an MSE++.

 

[sferrin]

Not sure of the SM2 but the Sm6 has intercepted MRBM's, precisely in the DF-21 range class.

When? And did it have a maneuvering RV?

Although one could hypothetically make dual or quad packed shorter ranged missile to defeat such a threat it is unlikely to cost in the half a million $ class. You'd need something like an MSE++.
[/quote]

Even the basic PAC-3 was intercepting Pershing II maneuvering RVs over a decade ago. I'd put MSEs ability to hit such difficult targets WELL above SM-6s.