Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook

Josh_TN said:
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.
Click to expand...
That was powerpoint art. Whoever made it took a Type 055 and "Americanized" it. I'd wager, 1. the final product (if there ever is one) looks nothing like it, and 2. we'll sorely regret wasting the opportunity the Zumwalt class presents.
 
sferrin said:
That was powerpoint art. Whoever made it took a Type 055 and "Americanized" it. I'd wager, 1. the final product (if there ever is one) looks nothing like it, and 2. we'll sorely regret wasting the opportunity the Zumwalt class presents.
Click to expand...

Concur. Look at that tank tow model that circulated with DDG(X). It shows a Zumwalt-style superstructure on a more conventional hullform.

I think there will be a lot of lessons learned from the Zs in DDG(X), starting with the evolution of IFEP into IEP.
 
I think we can still be confident that the radars, Mk57s, and gun systems die with that class. If the hull form proves to have sufficient advantages and durability such that it carries over, then yes that would be a big deal. There also was supposedly a lot of acoustical attenuation measures taken in this class but I've never heard them qualified. But they are, at best, very expensive technology test beds. If they get the guns ripped out and a fair number of CPS installed I guess that gives them a good role to fill in the Pacific; they can self escort and should be very hard to detect and identify with all the signature reduction measures.
 
Josh_TN said:
There also was supposedly a lot of acoustical attenuation measures taken in this class but I've never heard them qualified.
Click to expand...

There were quasi-official statements (off the record) saying the acoustic signature of the Zumwalt class is comparable to the SSN-688 class subs. That's pretty radical compared to previous surface ship classes.
 
TomS said:
Josh_TN said:
There also was supposedly a lot of acoustical attenuation measures taken in this class but I've never heard them qualified.
Click to expand...

There were quasi-official statements (off the record) saying the acoustic signature of the Zumwalt class is comparable to the SSN-688 class subs. That's pretty radical compared to previous surface ship classes.
Click to expand...
RIght, I've heard that stated too, but no one ever got into what physically was done to achieve the effect. Were that to be true, that certainly seems like technology that would be worth transferring to future classes, at least those specializing in ASW.

Also just realized I was talking about acoustical attenuation and then posted I'd never "heard" how it was achieved...hah, presumably that was the goal!
 
Josh_TN said:
RIght, I've heard that stated too, but no one ever got into what physically was done to achieve the effect. Were that to be true, that certainly seems like technology that would be worth transferring to future classes, at least those specializing in ASW.

Also just realized I was talking about acoustical attenuation and then posted I'd never "heard" how it was achieved...hah, presumably that was the goal!
Click to expand...

Yeah, the specific how to is sensitive, in exactly the same way that silencing measures on subs are sensitive. Electric drive is clearly a contributing factor, though, and that's coming through into DDG(X).
 
TomS said:
Josh_TN said:
RIght, I've heard that stated too, but no one ever got into what physically was done to achieve the effect. Were that to be true, that certainly seems like technology that would be worth transferring to future classes, at least those specializing in ASW.

Also just realized I was talking about acoustical attenuation and then posted I'd never "heard" how it was achieved...hah, presumably that was the goal!
Click to expand...

Yeah, the specific how to is sensitive, in exactly the same way that silencing measures on subs are sensitive. Electric drive is clearly a contributing factor, though, and that's coming through into DDG(X).
Click to expand...
Any word as to it's sea-keeping? I remember people thinking it would be a concern in big storms but then I never heard of any complaints.
 
sferrin said:
Any word as to it's sea-keeping? I remember people thinking it would be a concern in big storms but then I never heard of any complaints.
Click to expand...

They've been storm chasing up to at least Sea State 6 with no significant concerns. Scuttlebutt is that they are really good seaboats. You'd expect that given their size but they seem to exceed expectations. They're very snappy (quick, short rolls), which can be a bit uncomfortable, but in terms of worrying about them rolling over, that seems to be totally unfounded.
 
Josh_TN said:
I think we can still be confident that the radars, Mk57s, and gun systems die with that class. If the hull form proves to have sufficient advantages and durability such that it carries over, then yes that would be a big deal. There also was supposedly a lot of acoustical attenuation measures taken in this class but I've never heard them qualified. But they are, at best, very expensive technology test beds. If they get the guns ripped out and a fair number of CPS installed I guess that gives them a good role to fill in the Pacific; they can self escort and should be very hard to detect and identify with all the signature reduction measures.
Click to expand...
On the one hand I agree about the Mk57s. But they also allow that giant flight deck. (One thing I think will really be missed.)
 
sferrin said:
On the one hand I agree about the Mk57s. But they also allow that giant flight deck. (One thing I think will really be missed.)
Click to expand...

There's no fundamental reason a developed Mk 41 couldn't be installed as a peripheral VLS. Something like a row of Single Cell Launchers in blow-out compartments.

But if you want to reserve the option of swapping some of the Mk 41 for something much bigger, it really has to be installed in a big rectangular block.
 
Last edited:
In a $24 trillion economy we should be building 15/year not over five years. Plus way more SSNs
news.usni.org

Congress Wants Potential 15 Hull, 5-year Destroyer Deal at 3 Ships a Year - USNI News

This post has been updated with a statement from HII. Congress is considering a new multi-ship deal to buy up to 15 guided-missile destroyers for the Navy over the next five years, two legislative sources familiar with the deliberations told USNI News on Thursday. The deal would authorize a...
news.usni.org news.usni.org
 
bobbymike said:
In a $24 trillion economy we should be building 15/year not over five years. Plus way more SSNs
news.usni.org

Congress Wants Potential 15 Hull, 5-year Destroyer Deal at 3 Ships a Year - USNI News

This post has been updated with a statement from HII. Congress is considering a new multi-ship deal to buy up to 15 guided-missile destroyers for the Navy over the next five years, two legislative sources familiar with the deliberations told USNI News on Thursday. The deal would authorize a...
news.usni.org news.usni.org
Click to expand...
For a vague idea of what the US could achieve in the 1950s and 60s when it came to the production of guided missile-equipped surface combatants:

FY52: 2x Boston CAGs

FY53, FY54, & FY55: N/A

FY56: 1x Galveston CLG, 6x Farragut DLGs

FY57: 1x Long Beach CGN, 2x Galveston CLGs, 3x Providence CLGs, 4x Farragut DLGs and 8x Charles F. Adams DDGs

FY58: 1x Albany CG, 3x Leahy DLGs, 5x Charles F. Adams DDGs

FY59: 2x Albany CGs, 1x Bainbridge DLGN, 6x Leahy DLGs and 5x Charles F. Adams DDGs

FY60: 3x Charles F. Adams DDGs

FY61: 3x Belknap DLGs and 2x Charles F. Adams DDGs

FY62: 1x Truxtun DLGN, 6x Belknap DLGs and 3x Brooke DEGs

FY63: 3x Brooke DEGs

FY57 is the high point, with 13 new-build ships and 5 conversions taking place at the same time.
 
bobbymike said:
Yes come convert a bunch more to SSGNs and then replace with SSGN Columbia’s after the “boomer” version production run ends.

www.defensedaily.com

Pappano Says Navy Evaluating Up To 5 Ohio SSBN Sub Extensions, Also SSGN Extensions - Defense Daily

The Navy’s top officer for procuring and sustaining the Navy’s nuclear-armed ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs) last week confirmed the service is
www.defensedaily.com www.defensedaily.com
Click to expand...
Make sense, the last few Ohios still got a refueling left in them and we are still treaty limited on the number of ICBM tubes at sea.
 
There won’t be a limit post 2026. I suspect this only happens if the Columbias are delayed or the Chinese/Russians build up their nuclear forces such that the deterrent must be increased in size.
 
Useful for subs too - especially so, since it's passive.

www.bbc.com

The new sonar built from sealife noises

Military sonar can have a serious effect on some ocean animals. Could natural noises be used to locate undersea threats?
www.bbc.com www.bbc.com

"At the moment we treat all this natural sound as background noise, or interference, which we try to remove," says Adornato. "Why don't we take advantage of these sounds, see if we can find a signal?"

In other words, it works like other normal sonar but using noise produced by shrimp rather than artificial pings. Snapping shrimp, also known as pistol shrimp, have been called the loudest creatures on Earth. They make their distinctive snap by closing their pincers so fast they create a vacuum bubble which collapses in a burst of plasma measuring thousands of degrees. This produces a flash of light and a shockwave powerful enough to stun prey.

Interpreting these reflections is especially challenging, because, unlike traditional sonar, the location of the sound source is unknown. Again, the solution comes with modern software. Laferriere's team have developed smart algorithms to analyse the sound and pick out a single snap, first calculating the location of the shrimp, and then working out the path taken by the reflected sound and finally deducing where it was reflected.

Other Pals teams have followed similar approaches. Northrop Grumman's researchers are working on another shrimp-based sonar system and a Navy team is looking at general reef sounds and how intruders disturb them. All promise a cyborg sensor net covering wide areas for extended periods, with most of the hardware conveniently provided by nature. Only the hydrophones would need replacing or repairing.
 
www.navylookout.com

Solving the Royal Navy’s lethality problems | Navy Lookout

www.navylookout.com www.navylookout.com

In December 2021 the House of Commons Defence Select committee published the report ‘We’re going to need a bigger Navy’ following their inquiry into RN purpose and procurement. Their memorable and fair conclusion was that: “When ships do get to sea they act like porcupines – well-defended herbivores with limited offensive capabilities. This is a result of decisions by successive Governments to limit budgets and prioritise defensive capabilities. Offensive capabilities will be reduced even further when the Harpoon anti-ship missile is retired without a planned replacement. More money must be found to upgrade the Navy’s lethality and allow our ships to take the fight to the enemy.”

Although lacking mass, in general, the RN has effective air defences in the form of Sea Viper, Sea Ceptor and a mix of CIWS and light weapons. It is also equipped with good sensors and electronic warfare capabilities and is a potent anti-submarine force. In very broad terms, being effective at AAW and ASW has great value in keeping the sea lines of communication (SLOC) open and allowing the force to operate in theatre but are not the means to really threaten the adversary. It is the ability to sink ships, attack targets on land or mount amphibious operations that gives a navy the offensive edge that will act as a true deterrent.
 
To be fair that has been a long-term problem, the RN has lacked anti-ship punch since 1945. The RN didn't really consider SSMs until around 1966 and it took until the latter 1970s before Exocet appeared on a few ships. Not until Harpoon was acquired did more frigates get SSMs and all the Excocet-armed ships were disposed of during the 1990s anyway so leaving T22 B3 and T23 as the only Harpoon carriers and T45 only got recycled Harpoon cannisters from the decommissioned T22 B3 ships. So its never really been a priority requirement.

Lynx of course was the main aerial anti-ship platform with Sea Skua and loading Wildcat with no less than two types of ASMs I think pretty much indicates that air-delivered missiles are seen as more effective. If anything gets within Harpoon range its already too close for comfort.
 
jsport said:
www.defensenews.com

The Navy doesn’t want nukes on ships, despite interest from some combatant commanders

The Navy says forcing surface ships or attack submarines to haul around nuclear-tipped missiles would be feasible, but would be a burden in a time with many more pressing missions and no extra money to spare on lesser priorities.
www.defensenews.com www.defensenews.com
Click to expand...

Not near a full computer but this worth cross posting on the US nuclear thread. That specific ptograwas debated heavily there.
 
You know...

Alot of these issue can be solve by doing two things.

One.
Easing up on the bullshit patrols. Do we really need to be doing 200 plus days out at sea patrols? And doubling up on what everyone else is doing? Let our allies do their jobs for once.

Which leads too 2.

The navy doing basically wartime footing stuff on a peacetime, worse a recession peacetime budget.

You want the navy to do the 200 dollars things? Then pay them the 200 dollars and not the buck fifty you are. That includes opening up the taps so the navy has budget to buy all the shit you want them to buy.

Like the navy does have issues, but alot of it cause by chooses the Navy has to make to try and do what congress wants. Like you can bitch about how the navy too small all you want...

But if you keep trying yo make them do stuff on a smaller budget.

Well you get what you pay for.
 
Forest Green said:
Josh_TN said:
Who would possibly be the second belligerent nation in a two conflict situation?
Click to expand...
I'm guessing Russia and China.
Click to expand...
Russia seems rather occupied for the foreseeable future. Even if hostilities ended today, they are going to spend the better part of the decade putting their army back together. I can't imagine them starting a naval war just for giggles, and outside their submarine fleet it would take minimal assets to deal with anyway.
 
bobbymike said:
In a $24 trillion economy we should be building 15/year not over five years. Plus way more SSNs
news.usni.org

Congress Wants Potential 15 Hull, 5-year Destroyer Deal at 3 Ships a Year - USNI News

This post has been updated with a statement from HII. Congress is considering a new multi-ship deal to buy up to 15 guided-missile destroyers for the Navy over the next five years, two legislative sources familiar with the deliberations told USNI News on Thursday. The deal would authorize a...
news.usni.org news.usni.org
Click to expand...
The $24 Trillion economy has very little manufacturing ability and even less ship-building capacity. 15/5 years sounds very ambitious, to be honest.


About Navy being unable to fight a two-front war, it seems to be more the case that the Navy can't fight a one-front war beyond 30 days. If I recall correctly, there was a study saying that the shipyard shortage was such that any ship damaged in a conflict would be out-of-action for 1-2 years. Talk of two-front war is fantasy. How many naval bases have any form of air defense?

A navy is the most expensive military branch and depends upon a robust manufacturing, engineering, and manning infrastructure. The US has none of those, so we face perhaps the most expensive navy structure of all.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom