Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook

Josh_TN said:
mk48 production was already stopped and restarted once before. Honestly I'm not remotely worried about the USN having enough of those; the PLAN would run out of ships and subs long before the US ran out of Mk48s with the current inventory. I'm hoping that a follow on is in the works; it seems to me the USN could benefit from something quieter.
Click to expand...

I don't even think this is even stopping production (aside from a temporary gap), it's just moving production. I see SAIC just got orders for a bunch of Mk 48 components, so production is clearly still happening.
 
Josh_TN said:
mk48 production was already stopped and restarted once before. Honestly I'm not remotely worried about the USN having enough of those; the PLAN would run out of ships and subs long before the US ran out of Mk48s with the current inventory. I'm hoping that a follow on is in the works; it seems to me the USN could benefit from something quieter.
Click to expand...

Yeah but if you lose your industrial base you can't make NEW designs. The Mk48 is OLD. Minuteman 3 situation with no replacement in sight.
 
TomS said:
Firefinder said:
Welp the MK48 ADCAP torpedo and MK41 VLS system factories are being shuttered, again for the MK41...

www.forbes.com

Lockheed Martin Shutters 2 Navy Plants, Heralding New Technology On The Waterfront

Lockheed Martin just announced the surprise closure of two factories supporting the Freedom class Littoral Combat Ship, the Mk 48 heavyweight torpedo and the Mk 41 Vertical Launch System--suggesting that big changes are ahead for maritime warfare.
www.forbes.com www.forbes.com
Click to expand...

Sounds like a real estate issue, primarily. Mk 41 obviously has extensive orders booked and in the pipeline, between continuing DDG-51 production, FFG-62, and overseas buyers. But LM are looking to move the line to another facility elsewhere that presumably has unused floor space, so they can sell the Middle River plant. And they are talking about relocating staff who want to move, which means they aren't eliminating the Mk 41 production capacity.

Same for the Mk 48.
Click to expand...
For the Mk41 and the FFG I can see the Navy tell the yard to make a slight mod to fit the MK57 instead. It is roughly the same size to the MK41 mods outside of the height...

Which would fix the missile size issue and pretty well future proof the FFGs for the next 30 years...
 
Firefinder said:
For the Mk41 and the FFG I can see the Navy tell the yard to make a slight mod to fit the MK57 instead. It is roughly the same size to the MK41 mods outside of the height...
Click to expand...

I don't think that's accurate. The figures I have (see links below) say the Mk 57 is significantly wider than the Mk 41 (170 inches versus 125) while the length is just a few inches different and the depth is about a foot deeper. But the kicker is that the Mk 57 module is 4 cells, not 8 cells. So a 1-1 replacement of Mk 41 with Mk 57 means cutting the missile loadout in half.

 
sferrin said:
Josh_TN said:
mk48 production was already stopped and restarted once before. Honestly I'm not remotely worried about the USN having enough of those; the PLAN would run out of ships and subs long before the US ran out of Mk48s with the current inventory. I'm hoping that a follow on is in the works; it seems to me the USN could benefit from something quieter.
Click to expand...

Yeah but if you lose your industrial base you can't make NEW designs. The Mk48 is OLD. Minuteman 3 situation with no replacement in sight.
Click to expand...
The Mod7 was introduced in 2006 and production was restarted in 2016. It didn't seem to be a problem. As for industrial base, lockmart just made a torpedo 6 1/2" wide, so it seems like scaling to a heavyweight wouldn't be problematic technology wise. I'd like to see the USN adopt something electrically driven for the sake of quieting the fish; using an internal combustion engine is always going to be noisy even with the sound isolation and muffler of the Mod 6/7. But there are lots of companies that specialize in electric underwater propulsion for UUVs; it shouldn't be problematic to adopt a higher output, higher speed motor to heavyweight body.
 
Josh_TN said:
sferrin said:
Josh_TN said:
mk48 production was already stopped and restarted once before. Honestly I'm not remotely worried about the USN having enough of those; the PLAN would run out of ships and subs long before the US ran out of Mk48s with the current inventory. I'm hoping that a follow on is in the works; it seems to me the USN could benefit from something quieter.
Click to expand...

Yeah but if you lose your industrial base you can't make NEW designs. The Mk48 is OLD. Minuteman 3 situation with no replacement in sight.
Click to expand...
The Mod7 was introduced in 2006 and production was restarted in 2016. It didn't seem to be a problem. As for industrial base, lockmart just made a torpedo 6 1/2" wide, so it seems like scaling to a heavyweight wouldn't be problematic technology wise. I'd like to see the USN adopt something electrically driven for the sake of quieting the fish; using an internal combustion engine is always going to be noisy even with the sound isolation and muffler of the Mod 6/7. But there are lots of companies that specialize in electric underwater propulsion for UUVs; it shouldn't be problematic to adopt a higher output, higher speed motor to heavyweight body.
Click to expand...
Does make me wonder what they could do with modern LiPo technology.
 
Lithium batteries probably can't compete with the energy density of Otto II, but I think there's advantages to having a second torpedo type with a more quiet launch/run and more variable speed for closer targets. I can't imagine the 20nm+ range of Mk48 is gong to get used much in a real shooting match, at least not against any kind of peer submarine.
 
bobbymike said:
www.defenseone.com

New Small Aircraft Carrier Unlikely, Admiral Says As US Navy Begins New Assessment

Air warfare chief: “I believe the L-class ships operating with the F-35B fit that bill.”
www.defenseone.com www.defenseone.com
Click to expand...
strangely that site wont let me scroll to read more. anyone else with that problem?

in any case judging from the title and the first few paragraphs.. makes sense to me.
the L-class ships, despite being LHDs, are nearly as heavy as a Charles De Gaulle carrier and could be optimized to perhaps carry as much (or slightly less) F-35Bs in pure aircraft carrier mode.. as well as having the ability to function as an LHD too.

why not just buy more Ls if they wanna have more light carriers?
 
helmutkohl said:
bobbymike said:
www.defenseone.com

New Small Aircraft Carrier Unlikely, Admiral Says As US Navy Begins New Assessment

Air warfare chief: “I believe the L-class ships operating with the F-35B fit that bill.”
www.defenseone.com www.defenseone.com
Click to expand...
strangely that site wont let me scroll to read more. anyone else with that problem?

in any case judging from the title and the first few paragraphs.. makes sense to me.
the L-class ships, despite being LHDs, are nearly as heavy as a Charles De Gaulle carrier and could be optimized to perhaps carry as much (or slightly less) F-35Bs in pure aircraft carrier mode.. as well as having the ability to function as an LHD too.

why not just buy more Ls if they wanna have more light carriers?
Click to expand...
As long as they don't cut into the CVN buy I don't have a problem with that. It's when idiot politicians start thinking an LHA is a CVN that costs less that we get into trouble.
 
on the topic of small carriers

assuming this picture of the Juan Carlos (and I assume its the same for the Canberra, and the Turkish ships)
gSTS5ha.png

Edh3xR6WsAEZYKx.png


the absolute maximum fixed wing combat aircraft carried in a carrier configuration would be about

Trieste: 23 F-35s
JC: 22 F-35s

I've read the USS America is about 20 but not sure if the below deck space is being optimally configured.
 
While I agree with McGrath that the county's naval infrastructure deserves to be addressed during this period of investment, I think he's making some mistakes with how he frames the argument and presents his case that undermine a good cause. I don't think it's determinative one way or the other, I just wish navalists in general were better at making this case.
Grey Havoc said:
Grey Havoc said:
www.forbes.com

New Subs Need Biden To Boost Navy’s Broken Public Shipyards

With the Biden Administration mulling a national effort to refresh America’s decaying infrastructure, public shipyards merit a portion of the Administration’s COVID-related largesse.
www.forbes.com www.forbes.com
Click to expand...

It is quite arguable that the surface fleet needs the Naval Yards back even more.
Click to expand...
Both the surface and subsurface fleets need yard investment period, but the conventionally-powered surface fleet can use an array of commerical yards, and non-US yards at times, whereas the nukes can only use EB and NN beyond the Navy's own yards.
 
Last edited:
bobbymike said:
www.usni.org

Resurrect the Hunter-Killer Group

A 21st-century antisubmarine task group could bring the fleet a substantial increase in capability, operational flexibility, and lethality.
www.usni.org www.usni.org
Click to expand...
The next iteration of the SCAR/AR concept should be to arm the MH-60S with a legitimate antiship cruise missile. The effective range of the missile would more than double the surface warfare commander’s reach. Expanding the SCAR/AR concept, an MH-60R could detect and classify a contact, transmit the picture in real time to the surface warfare commander for authority, and order the accompanying MH-60S to launch the missile from a completely different location.
Click to expand...
Very nice
 
bobbymike said:

Navy considering alternatives to LUSV, packing amphibs, commercial designs more with long-range missiles​

The Navy, which last fall proposed a $3.6 billion, five-year plan to launch a fleet of Large Unmanned Surface Vehicles packed with long-range missiles, is now conducting an analysis to determine if an LUSV is the most appropriate platform to add offensive punch to the surface fleet -- an assessment mandated by Congress and which the service aims to complete by October
Click to expand...

So glad Congress called them out on this. I think an unmanned firing unit is just a bad idea. The tech isn’t there yet and the weapons themselves are high value even if the ship isn’t. The MUSV makes a lot more sense as a disposable EW and sensor platform that can also be expended as a decoy. It also will allow for a low cost, low risk platform to test unmanned operational theories. LUSV is a bridge to far.
 
1618333837003.png
ORIGINAL CAPTION: The Light Amphibious Warship (green ship, bottom) will have to land the USMC HiMARS because the PrSM missiles currently have short range. Lockheed’s future PrSMs with expanded ranges and advanced seekers can have the HiMARS fire from the helicopter flight deck when out at sea at moving land and sea targets as envisioned by USMC General Berger. Image: Sea Transport Solutions.

www.navalnews.com

New PrSMs Variants Could be a Game Changer for the U.S. Marine Corps’ HiMARS - Naval News

If the future new Lockheed Martin Precision Strike Missile (PrSM) can be made to fly over 300+ miles, this might mean that the United States Marine Corps’ (USMC) HiMARS can fire these missiles from ships out at sea without requiring the LCACs, SSCs, LCUs, or LAWs to land forces on the beaches.
www.navalnews.com www.navalnews.com

(h/t Lc89 and TomcatViP for the original link)
 
Last edited:
I never understood why the laws only have one ramp at the stern and not two at the bow and stern. That seems a bit silly to me.
 
And, in this case, the point of the design is not to have a fore ramp, so the bow's not compromised by its presence and thus this ship can enjoy superior sailing qualities compared to previous landing craft.
 
Moose said:
And, in this case, the point of the design is not to have a fore ramp, so the bow's not compromised by its presence and thus this ship can enjoy superior sailing qualities compared to previous landing craft.
Click to expand...

And yet, it's still a 15-knot ship...
 
TomS said:
Moose said:
And, in this case, the point of the design is not to have a fore ramp, so the bow's not compromised by its presence and thus this ship can enjoy superior sailing qualities compared to previous landing craft.
Click to expand...

And yet, it's still a 15-knot ship...
Click to expand...
Seaworthiness covers more areas than just top speed, and more over bow shape is a big driver of top speed so I suspect it gets to 15 knots with a comparatively small powerplant. LCU 2000 as a comparison is 11-12 knots.

That said I'm not particularly enthusiastic about the direction the USMC is going. Putting landing parties on unarmed ships just so they can try to fire missiles at ships seems rather pointless compared to just putting missiles ON ships. Why even land troops?
 
Those Polnocnys in the background of that photo manip can make 18kt on 4,400hp, and that was nearly 50 years ago with a bow door...

Has anyone ever tried backing an LST onto a beach backwards before? I presume whatever propulsion pods are used are reasonably far forward under the keel to prevent fouling in shallow water?
 
I believe there are civilian ferry ships of this type already, though no existing military LSTs. I think that's why they have that relatively slow speed, is because they are being adopted directly from a commercial design rather than remade for military use. Cheaper build cost, less lead time, but less capability. The advantage to the stern ramp seems to be not just sea keeping but ease of riding up the beach and getting back off of it again. Of all my criticisms of the LAW (should just be "new LST") program, the stern ramp isn't near the top of the list.

EDIT: there's probably also a lot of offloading advantages to that wide and tall stern gate compared to a narrow and short bow ramp.
 
Josh_TN said:
TomS said:
Moose said:
And, in this case, the point of the design is not to have a fore ramp, so the bow's not compromised by its presence and thus this ship can enjoy superior sailing qualities compared to previous landing craft.
Click to expand...

And yet, it's still a 15-knot ship...
Click to expand...
Seaworthiness covers more areas than just top speed, and more over bow shape is a big driver of top speed so I suspect it gets to 15 knots with a comparatively small powerplant. LCU 2000 as a comparison is 11-12 knots.

That said I'm not particularly enthusiastic about the direction the USMC is going. Putting landing parties on unarmed ships just so they can try to fire missiles at ships seems rather pointless compared to just putting missiles ON ships. Why even land troops?
Click to expand...

This is fair. I find myself comparing with the Expeditionary Fast Transports, which are very similar in capacity. The EPFs certainly do need a good deal more powerplant and they can't beach, but they can operate in fairly austere areas, and have a lot more mobility than the LAW, which seems rather critical in the WestPac AOR. I just don't see how anything moving at 15 knots make sense if the idea is to deploy small Marine units, have them launch a "surprise attack," and then run away.

Or, as you say, why it makes sense for the Marines to even land. A more conventional warship the size of a LAW could easily carry multiple launchers for long-range missiles and launch them from sea or a protected harbor.
 
www.usni.org

Pivot Fleet Design

If the missile has supplanted the aircraft-delivered bomb as the decisive weapon of the future, then future fleet design must pivot on the logic of missile combat.
www.usni.org www.usni.org
 
Hood said:
Has anyone ever tried backing an LST onto a beach backwards before? I presume whatever propulsion pods are used are reasonably far forward under the keel to prevent fouling in shallow water?
Click to expand...
There was a 1948 BuShips design for a 20-knot LST which was intended to do exactly that. The propellers were a the bow, and judging by the sketch, the rudders look retractable.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom