Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook

Jimmo952 said:
TomS said:
Firefinder said:
TomS said:
And if you're making numbers by retaining ships that don't contribute to warfighting capacity [cough] LCS [/cough] then you're just spending money without improving the ability to execute the mission.

There's a sunk cost fallacy at work here (pun not intended). Yes, we spent an inordinate sum on LCS that in hindsight should have been spent elsewhere. But it doesn't make sense to continue funding them once it becomes clear that they aren't contributing to the mission.
Click to expand...
The Independence class is finding a solid niche is being Marine Fast Taxis, minesweepers, and low level area patrol boats. Helps that not only do they work, that big deck and hanger of theirs allows for nearly every copter in the Force to use them.

Hell they can even squeez in a few of those Robo NSSM cars in a pinch as well. Which works nicely with the Marines new doctrine.

Those LCS are more then earning their keep.

The fucking Freedoms, which are the 8 to 10 being retired, on the other hand...

Why did we buy that class again?
Click to expand...

Yeah, I'm with you. I thought about making that distinction and decided to err on the side of brevity.
Click to expand...

How are is the Independence Class being used as minesweeper?

I didn't think the MIW package was delivered yet??

I'm not looking to argue, just looking to learn.
Click to expand...
The Proper, class specially, gear has yet to arrive.

But it does not stop them from being use as a Base for the older legacy Helicopter Sweepers and divers. And the Navy just did the big, Does everything FUcking Work Test on the USS Tulsa last year as well.
 
Contracted plus options total to 45 based on the current contract. Once they're through this they will place another contract etc. This thing will be in production for decades much like the SPY-1 it replaces.
 
The Burke Flight I / IIs likely won't be upgraded; they will be retired. And obviously the Ticos aren't getting upgraded. So the 45 figure probably only includes the Flight IIA in terms of surface combatants.
 
I count a total of 47 Flight IIAs (including the Restart and Technology Insertion sub-flights). So this contract dies not cover even all of them. Here is a better press release, I think:

www.prnewswire.com

Raytheon Missiles & Defense awarded $651 million to produce SPY-6 radars for next-gen US Navy ships

/PRNewswire/ -- Raytheon Missiles & Defense, a Raytheon Technologies (NYSE: RTX) business, was awarded a $651 million, with options totaling $2.5 billion,...
www.prnewswire.com www.prnewswire.com

The contract, with options, totals $3.2 billion and five years of radar production to equip up to 31 U.S. Navy ships with SPY-6 radars.
.....
Under the contract, RMD will produce solid state, fixed-face and rotating SPY-6 variants that will deliver unprecedented integrated air and missile defense capabilities for seven types of U.S. Navy ships over the next 40 years. Those vessels include the Navy's new Arleigh Burke class Flight III destroyers, aircraft carriers and amphibious ships; today's Flight IIA destroyers will be backfit with an upgraded radar.
Click to expand...
 
TomS said:
I count a total of 47 Flight IIAs (including the Restart and Technology Insertion sub-flights). So this contract dies not cover even all of them. Here is a better press release, I think:

www.prnewswire.com

Raytheon Missiles & Defense awarded $651 million to produce SPY-6 radars for next-gen US Navy ships

/PRNewswire/ -- Raytheon Missiles & Defense, a Raytheon Technologies (NYSE: RTX) business, was awarded a $651 million, with options totaling $2.5 billion,...
www.prnewswire.com www.prnewswire.com

The contract, with options, totals $3.2 billion and five years of radar production to equip up to 31 U.S. Navy ships with SPY-6 radars.
.....
Under the contract, RMD will produce solid state, fixed-face and rotating SPY-6 variants that will deliver unprecedented integrated air and missile defense capabilities for seven types of U.S. Navy ships over the next 40 years. Those vessels include the Navy's new Arleigh Burke class Flight III destroyers, aircraft carriers and amphibious ships; today's Flight IIA destroyers will be backfit with an upgraded radar.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

The new FFGs will be getting an SPY-6 variant as well.
 
Jimmo952 said:
TomS said:
I count a total of 47 Flight IIAs (including the Restart and Technology Insertion sub-flights). So this contract dies not cover even all of them. Here is a better press release, I think:

www.prnewswire.com

Raytheon Missiles & Defense awarded $651 million to produce SPY-6 radars for next-gen US Navy ships

/PRNewswire/ -- Raytheon Missiles & Defense, a Raytheon Technologies (NYSE: RTX) business, was awarded a $651 million, with options totaling $2.5 billion,...
www.prnewswire.com www.prnewswire.com

The contract, with options, totals $3.2 billion and five years of radar production to equip up to 31 U.S. Navy ships with SPY-6 radars.
.....
Under the contract, RMD will produce solid state, fixed-face and rotating SPY-6 variants that will deliver unprecedented integrated air and missile defense capabilities for seven types of U.S. Navy ships over the next 40 years. Those vessels include the Navy's new Arleigh Burke class Flight III destroyers, aircraft carriers and amphibious ships; today's Flight IIA destroyers will be backfit with an upgraded radar.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

The new FFGs will be getting an SPY-6 variant as well.
Click to expand...
Yes, but its unclear whether that's included in this contract or not. They're not being at all clear about what "types" of U.S. Navy ships" means. We could be talking about Flight IIA, Flight IIA Restart, Flight IIA Tech Insertion, and Flight III as four types or just two if they lump all the IIA subtypes together. Then we have the Ford class, Nimitz Class, San Antonio class, LHA-8, and FFG-62. That's five more, for a total of either seven or nine "types" depending on how you count.
 
I understand your point. My core point was the SPY-6 is destined to be ubiquitous in US Navy service.
 
Most definitely.

Interesting question whether the DDG-1000s will also get SPY-6.
 
Forest Green said:
breakingdefense.com

Navy's shipbuilding request may be 'violation of law,' Inhofe warns - Breaking Defense

Expect Congress to voice its displeasure when Navy leadership testify on Capitol Hill.
breakingdefense.com breakingdefense.com

https://twitter.com/x/status/1508578131120168960
View: https://twitter.com/JimInhofe/status/1508578131120168960
Click to expand...
Largely because a whole bunch of ships are reaching the end of their service life or were such lemons that nothing can fix them...

... which is why I hate journalism...
 
www.navalnews.com

Zumwalt Destroyers’ 155mm AGSs’ Removal Fates Undetermined - Naval News

The U.S. Navy has confirmed that the three Zumwalt destroyers’ 155mm AGSs will be replaced with hypersonic missile vertical launch tubes.
www.navalnews.com www.navalnews.com

The U.S. Navy has confirmed that the three stealthy DDG 1000 Zumwalt destroyers’ inactive and never-fired 155mm Advanced Gun Systems (AGS) will be removed for the installation of the Conventional Prompt Strike (CPS) hypersonic missile vertical launch tubes in their places.​

 
Will be interesting to see how many CPS they can fit on the Zoomies. Previously I'd seen the number twelve, but that seems like a really lack luster number of tubes for so much deck space.
 
Josh_TN said:
Will be interesting to see how many CPS they can fit on the Zoomies. Previously I'd seen the number twelve, but that seems like a really lack luster number of tubes for so much deck space.
Click to expand...
Each VPM tube, which is what I heard is being install*, is nearly the size of the Polaris ICBM tubes we wanted to put on ships back in the day.

Or in recent terms, each tube is an MK41 Module.

So for 12 tubes you basically getting a VLS farm of 96 cells.

Which is a Burke load out.

Actually its slightly less with each tube able to take 6 Tomahawks [72 missiles] or 3 CPS [36].

Which is a fuckton.

*makes sense since then you have commonality with the what? Almost 30 Virginia class subs that have the VPM? Not to mention what the SSN(x) and Colombia classes.
 
Firefinder said:
Josh_TN said:
Will be interesting to see how many CPS they can fit on the Zoomies. Previously I'd seen the number twelve, but that seems like a really lack luster number of tubes for so much deck space.
Click to expand...
Each VPM tube, which is what I heard is being install*, is nearly the size of the Polaris ICBM tubes we wanted to put on ships back in the day.

Or in recent terms, each tube is an MK41 Module.

So for 12 tubes you basically getting a VLS farm of 96 cells.

Which is a Burke load out.

Actually its slightly less with each tube able to take 6 Tomahawks [72 missiles] or 3 CPS [36].

Which is a fuckton.

*makes sense since then you have commonality with the what? Almost 30 Virginia class subs that have the VPM? Not to mention what the SSN(x) and Colombia classes.
Click to expand...

Rather larger than Polaris (more like Trident D-5). Each VPM tube is ~87 inches in diameter and ~32 feet tall. The height should fit inside the magazine hull depth of the AGS (maybe with a short deckhouse added?) . That leaves the question of width. Each AGS has a footprint of at least a 64-cell Mk 41 (so, ~250 inches x 340 inches) It should be trivial to fit four Virginia Payload Module tubes inside the footprint of one AGS. Which suggests 3x4 = 12 CPS per AGS (24 total).

Now, if they go with a different canister style, like the NG Modular Launch System proposal (link below) you get an implied capacity of between 16 and 24 missiles in a single launcher framework about the size of an AGS:

 
I think it likely they go with the VPM just because I can't see the USN investing a money in development of a new bespoke launcher. The only other option I could see is a flush mounted container based on the US Army launcher that raises up, but I suspect that would still require a prohibitive amount of marinization. I had heard twelve missiles mentioned somewhere but I agree it seems VPMs could easily fit two abreast in the AGS position. Perhaps the weight of the missile and launcher would prevent that though - the dummy canisters the Army was loading listed the missile as being 16,000lbs +
 
Josh_TN said:
I think it likely they go with the VPM just because I can't see the USN investing a money in development of a new bespoke launcher. The only other option I could see is a flush mounted container based on the US Army launcher that raises up, but I suspect that would still require a prohibitive amount of marinization. I had heard twelve missiles mentioned somewhere but I agree it seems VPMs could easily fit two abreast in the AGS position. Perhaps the weight of the missile and launcher would prevent that though - the dummy canisters the Army was loading listed the missile as being 16,000lbs +
Click to expand...

Let's do the math.

Each AGS mount weighs 104 tons (not including magazine). Each pallet of 8 LRLAP is another ~2.5 tons, so 320 rounds per gun is about 100 tons. And more for the automated magazine/ammunition handling system.

Assume a vertical launcher weighs about as much as its maximum load of canisters and missiles (Mk 41 is close to that 117 tons for an empty 61-cell launcher and 230 tons with a partial TLAM load). That implies a weight of around 15 tons per CPS including launcher. So, each AGS turret and ammunition is easily equivalent in weight to 12 CPS launchers without even accounting for the ammunition handling system.

VPM might weigh more, since you have basically two canisters inside each other and have to deal with submerging them. But still, 12 per gun seems entirely plausible.
 
Josh_TN said:
I think it likely they go with the VPM just because I can't see the USN investing a money in development of a new bespoke launcher.
Click to expand...
It's only "bespoke" if they're dumb enough to let it languish (Mk57). The MSL should be replacing the Mk41 system.
 
sferrin said:
Josh_TN said:
I think it likely they go with the VPM just because I can't see the USN investing a money in development of a new bespoke launcher.
Click to expand...
It's only "bespoke" if they're dumb enough to let it languish (Mk57). The MSL should be replacing the Mk41 system.
Click to expand...

Or maybe it's time to do some advanced investment in the DDG(X) Destroyer Payload Module....
 
TomS said:
sferrin said:
Josh_TN said:
I think it likely they go with the VPM just because I can't see the USN investing a money in development of a new bespoke launcher.
Click to expand...
It's only "bespoke" if they're dumb enough to let it languish (Mk57). The MSL should be replacing the Mk41 system.
Click to expand...

Or maybe it's time to do some advanced investment in the DDG(X) Destroyer Payload Module....
Click to expand...
Whenever I hear "module" I think of LCS and shudder.
 
sferrin said:
Whenever I hear "module" I think of LCS and shudder.
Click to expand...

No similar shudders about the VPMs or VPTs on the Virginia class? That seems much closer to the intent of the DPM.
 
Maybe there will be a new type of VLS cell in the future, but I highly doubt anyone is funding that for the Zoomies. If it doesn't already exist, do you really want them to try to invent it now, fail, and just give up rather than adopt something that's already been worked on? No one is investing a lot of money on those white elephants. If it hits any problems, they just don't get upgraded; maybe simply retired as being worthless.
 
Josh_TN said:
Maybe there will be a new type of VLS cell in the future, but I highly doubt anyone is funding that for the Zoomies. If it doesn't already exist, do you really want them to try to invent it now, fail, and just give up rather than adopt something that's already been worked on? No one is investing a lot of money on those white elephants. If it hits any problems, they just don't get upgraded; maybe simply retired as being worthless.
Click to expand...
They're only "white elephants" because the USN doesn't have a plan. They're not terrible ships as the "white elephant" comment would imply. The USN SHOULD be using these as precursors to the Tico replacement. Hell, they could even sell it as "risk reduction".
 
sferrin said:
Josh_TN said:
Maybe there will be a new type of VLS cell in the future, but I highly doubt anyone is funding that for the Zoomies. If it doesn't already exist, do you really want them to try to invent it now, fail, and just give up rather than adopt something that's already been worked on? No one is investing a lot of money on those white elephants. If it hits any problems, they just don't get upgraded; maybe simply retired as being worthless.
Click to expand...
They're only "white elephants" because the USN doesn't have a plan. They're not terrible ships as the "white elephant" comment would imply. The USN SHOULD be using these as precursors to the Tico replacement. Hell, they could even sell it as "risk reduction".
Click to expand...
Never the less, they are white elephants without a purpose. The bombardment mission is yet another example of the USMC screwing up projects and procurement budgets with its fantasies post cold war.
 
Josh_TN said:
sferrin said:
Josh_TN said:
Maybe there will be a new type of VLS cell in the future, but I highly doubt anyone is funding that for the Zoomies. If it doesn't already exist, do you really want them to try to invent it now, fail, and just give up rather than adopt something that's already been worked on? No one is investing a lot of money on those white elephants. If it hits any problems, they just don't get upgraded; maybe simply retired as being worthless.
Click to expand...
They're only "white elephants" because the USN doesn't have a plan. They're not terrible ships as the "white elephant" comment would imply. The USN SHOULD be using these as precursors to the Tico replacement. Hell, they could even sell it as "risk reduction".
Click to expand...
Never the less, they are white elephants without a purpose. The bombardment mission is yet another example of the USMC screwing up projects and procurement budgets with its fantasies post cold war.
Click to expand...
Calling them "white elephants" doesn't make it so. It just makes you sound petulant with a chip on your shoulder. But carry on.
 
They are a ship class of only three ships that have no mission. I don't see how the phrase isn't appropriate. One could argue that the USN could have made a useful class of them and that most of the underlying engineering was sound (outside the gun system), but never the less here we are.
 
Josh_TN said:
They are a ship class of only three ships that have no mission. I don't see how the phrase isn't appropriate. One could argue that the USN could have made a useful class of them and that most of the underlying engineering was sound (outside the gun system), but never the less here we are.
Click to expand...
"No mission"? So they're scrapping them then?
 
sferrin said:
Josh_TN said:
They are a ship class of only three ships that have no mission. I don't see how the phrase isn't appropriate. One could argue that the USN could have made a useful class of them and that most of the underlying engineering was sound (outside the gun system), but never the less here we are.
Click to expand...
"No mission"? So they're scrapping them then?
Click to expand...
They are apparently tacking on CPS to give them a mission. Have they been deployed anywhere yet?
 
Josh_TN said:
sferrin said:
Josh_TN said:
They are a ship class of only three ships that have no mission. I don't see how the phrase isn't appropriate. One could argue that the USN could have made a useful class of them and that most of the underlying engineering was sound (outside the gun system), but never the less here we are.
Click to expand...
"No mission"? So they're scrapping them then?
Click to expand...
They are apparently tacking on CPS to give them a mission. Have they been deployed anywhere yet?
Click to expand...
Has Ford? Guess it's a white elephant.
 
I wonder if the 57mm will be revisited on the Zumwalts? It was originally specified before being replaced with 30mm, I wonder if the original foundations and interfaces are still in place for a retrofit.
 
Volkodav said:
I wonder if the 57mm will be revisited on the Zumwalts? It was originally specified before being replaced with 30mm, I wonder if the original foundations and interfaces are still in place for a retrofit.
Click to expand...

Very unlikely.
 
Maybe they could stack the smaller VLS cells on the outboards and open up one vertical stack at a time. It might resemble a file cabinet opening, popping the launcher outwards, away from the ship. The actual launcher could be built into pallets that are extended out on rails. Once closed reloading would be akin to rotating new pallets to the rails. Might resemble a warehouse's automated pallet robot integrated into the outer hulls. On cheaper vessels there may only be one pallet per launcher. On larger vessels maybe add a few simple reloads for 1-4 launchers. On a dedicated frigate-sized ship you might have a sophisticated way to shuffle around dozen of pallets to a dozen launchers. The goal would be mass launching of smaller VLS units without impacting fleet networked VLS built into the decks. If you can pop off a six pack of Sea Sparrow/ESSM or JSM from the belt at a moments notice, it leaves considerable more deck space for Standard. It also allows the focus on low-cost hot launches, whereas most deck mounts are moving to more expensive cold launches.
 
Last edited:
MadRat said:
Maybe they could stack the smaller VLS cells on the outboards and open up one vertical stack at a time. It might resemble a file cabinet opening, popping the launcher outwards, away from the ship. The actual launcher could be built into pallets that are extended out on rails. Once closed reloading would be akin to rotating new pallets to the rails. Might resemble a warehouse's automated pallet robot integrated into the outer hulls.
Click to expand...

One attraction of VLS is lack of mechanical complexity (the S-300F revolver VLS notwithstanding). This Rube Goldberg contraption sounds like the worst of all possible worlds.
 
Josh_TN said:
They are a ship class of only three ships that have no mission. I don't see how the phrase isn't appropriate. One could argue that the USN could have made a useful class of them and that most of the underlying engineering was sound (outside the gun system), but never the less here we are.
Click to expand...
Tell that to the Seawolf-class, which was in a vastly similar situation. Their class was supposed to be some 30 strong but ended up a mere fraction of that.

Then again, the USN has ship classes that were limited in number being used as testbeds...
 
GruntFox said:
Josh_TN said:
They are a ship class of only three ships that have no mission. I don't see how the phrase isn't appropriate. One could argue that the USN could have made a useful class of them and that most of the underlying engineering was sound (outside the gun system), but never the less here we are.
Click to expand...
Tell that to the Seawolf-class, which was in a vastly similar situation. Their class was supposed to be some 30 strong but ended up a mere fraction of that.

Then again, the USN has ship classes that were limited in number being used as testbeds...
Click to expand...
The Seawolfs managed to find useful work and I suspect a lot of their technology improvements were utilitzed in the Virginia class. Looking at the DDG(X) proposals, the only trace of Zoomie I see in it is the IEP system. It looks like nothing else made the cut. The USN definitely has testbed ships and boats that were usually single ships (although I can't think of one that was built since the 60's). The Zoomies definitely weren't intended to fulfill that purpose and even in that usage they seem sub optimal given how little is carrying over to future classes. I think they are slightly less of a failure than the LCS, in that at least some of their technology seemed sound where as half the LCSs have no redeeming value and the other half's primary use looks to be as a moving helicopter pad.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom