Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook

DrRansom said:
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.
Click to expand...
So, I guess the Ford class CVNs is being built in South Korea? :rolleyes:
 
sferrin said:
So, I guess the Ford class CVNs is being built in South Korea? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

It would be cheaper and easier to build Ford CVNs if the US still had a robust broad-spectrum shipbuilding industry. The manpower pool for engineering and construction would be larger and better than right now, where the only real ship-building is military.

The result appears on the margins: ship-building is more expensive and lengthier and less robust than China.
 
DrRansom said:
How many naval bases have any form of air defense?
Click to expand...
Two, three if you count Hawaii.

The other two is basically the FOB of a Naval Base in Guam that is used as a stopping point and has fuck all for port functions. But does have Thaad and Patriot battery station there last I check.

And the next US "owned" one is in Japan at Yokosuka. Which is under the JSDF and USAF fighters, with Japanese keeping some of their SAMs there as well.

Which is the Same for Hawaii. Which is the only state that military base has one of its Patriot batteries on hot standby at all time. With more then a few large radars scanning 360 degrees 24/7 to give warning.

All other US naval bases are in CONUS. As in the Continental United States. So far out of range of any way to easily attack that basically only ICBMs are a threat, if used guaranteed triple the amount of return fire.

And attacking US home terrorities is a knewn berserk button for the US that triggers an excessive amount of force to be used.

So eyeah most US naval bases dont need air defenses since it basically impossible to attack conventionally by air. With the three under actual threat do have defense.

While the bases in Europe belong to their native country who responsible for all the defense and the like. Its their job to provide the lion share of protection not ours. The USN just rent dock space there basically. Same with other bases in the Pacifics, their either, Australian, Japanese, Korea, Philippine, or lately Vietnam owned.

Eyeah less money on defenses, that covered, more money on jobs and capabilities that is needed. Return Guam to its WW2 ability level of being able to repair ships. Rebuy the old dry docks tgat still exist in Cali and get them up to snuff. Stuff like that is needed.

Not defenses.
 
sferrin said:
Two airbases within 25 miles of Newport News = "no air defenses".

View attachment 682422
Click to expand...
Compare likes of Hawaii or Yokosuka which has SAMs on Standbye in the base proper?

Kinda is.

Which was the point I was getting at.

To some people, having jets even as little as twenty mikes out, assuming 15 alert and 5 travel, is not enough for defense. They want sams chilling in the base proper.

Their not right, since fighter are the best counter for air attacks, but I can see where they are coming from. Especially with the proliferation of cruise missiles type weapons, before you toss in the Hypersonic scare we currently going thru. Plus considering even the F22s at Langley is not that good of a missile killer, in a not optimizedfor it way. And since Langley has most of the older F22 lot the Air Force will like to retire...

Can see the argument for adding SAMs.

Which is what I often hear when ask about Air Defense. Wheres the SAMs at?

Answer not that needed.
 
Last edited:
Josh_TN said:
Who exactly is going to bomb the continental United States and with what?
Click to expand...
Sub-launched launched cruise missiles or - at a stretch - bomber launched cruise-missiles. The sort of stuff that calls for 24/7 radar early warning, but not necessarily large raid sizes.

Back on topic, the issue for a medium term naval arms race with China is that China can afford to build and maintain a much larger fleet than the US. Something has to change with US industry-management, a switch to outright government subsidizing of all types of shipbuilding and merchant-marine, perhaps, to give the large-enough base to support a multi-decade arms race.
 
Last edited:
Note the much larger VLS on the back. China gets it. South Korea gets it. Apparently we're the only ones too stupid to figure it out.
 
sferrin said:
Note the much larger VLS on the back. China gets it. South Korea gets it. Apparently we're the only ones too stupid to figure it out.
Click to expand...
So just going to ignore the fact that the Zumwalt and its larger MK57 VLS existed before China or Korea did it and was and still is something often...

Well Bitch about cause it was useless waste of space since we didnt have any weapons would take advantage of it. Nor does any of the current weapons cells fit...

And is in the middle of getting an even bigger VLS system.

The Navy HAS figured it out.

IT did nearly 3 decades ago when the requirements of MK57 was drawn up.

But what happened?

It was considered unnecessary and waste of money. The Burke as is can do what they wanted cheaper! (leaving out the fact that it been cheaper to stay with the 32 full spec Zumwalts over the FURBAR of reactivating the Burke Line.)

Eyeah Blame the opposite of Progress that is Congress boss not the navy for that one.
 
Firefinder said:
sferrin said:
Note the much larger VLS on the back. China gets it. South Korea gets it. Apparently we're the only ones too stupid to figure it out.
Click to expand...
So just going to ignore the fact that the Zumwalt and its larger MK57 VLS existed before China or Korea did it and was and still is something often...
Click to expand...

What did we do with it? Oh, right. Nothing.

Firefinder said:
Well Bitch about cause it was useless waste of space since we didnt have any weapons would take advantage of it. Nor does any of the current weapons cells fit...
Click to expand...

Is that supposed to make the USN sound smarter?

Firefinder said:
And is in the middle of getting an even bigger VLS system.
Click to expand...

For a whole FOUR missiles. Again, is that supposed to make the USN sound smarter?

Firefinder said:
The Navy HAS figured it out.

IT did nearly 3 decades ago when the requirements of MK57 was drawn up.

But what happened?

It was considered unnecessary and waste of money. The Burke as is can do what they wanted cheaper! (leaving out the fact that it been cheaper to stay with the 32 full spec Zumwalts over the FURBAR of reactivating the Burke Line.)

Eyeah Blame the opposite of Progress that is Congress boss not the navy for that one.
Click to expand...

Congress doesn't dictate cell size or weapons. They damn sure aren't going to fund anything with no proposals.
 
sferrin said:
What did we do with it? Oh, right. Nothing.
Click to expand...
Why that is I wonder?

Oh eyeah it was force cancelled by Congress as unneed.

sferrin said:
Is that supposed to make the USN sound smarter?
Click to expand...
Yes cause they were trying to do the right thing but the Peanut gallery scream and rage about till it got cancelled on them.

Ut not the Navy fault but Congress.

sferrin said:
For a whole FOUR missiles. Again, is that supposed to make the USN sound smarter?
Click to expand...
Which is four more then the Korea or China has. Those max out at 28 inches. The Zumwalts are geting ones that are 34 plus inches. Cause hypersonics need bigger tubes then anything at sea besides the ICBMs to get NEAR the performance of the 1k Tomahawk.

The only thing a Hypersonic does better then a Tomahawk is get to the target faster. That it.


sferrin said:
Congress doesn't dictate cell size or weapons. They damn sure aren't going to fund anything with no proposals
Click to expand...
They dont even want to fund the proposals WE GOT if their is even a slight issue with them during development.

How many times were the Ford, F35, Virginia and Zumwalts were threaten or got cancel cause the media blow up a minor issue out of proportion?

Oh eyeah, lots. The Entire Military had to fight to get what it has.

And here we are, gashing and wailing bout not having the capabilities we want but dont have..

When we HAD THEM but we wail about how useless they were. So they were cancelled and removed. Cause Congresz believe us when we said they were useless and waste of funding.

And now everything has a surprise Pikachu face since it turns out that we really DID need them.

That is entirely on Congress for getting frightened over a little bad press and listening to the glorified peanut gallery instead of the expects in the services.

The Navy can do nothing bout that but lobby and that only goes so far. Doesn't matter how many proposals the Navy have if congress only pays for two of them. Or straight up dont believe that they are needed.
 
Firefinder said:
sferrin said:
What did we do with it? Oh, right. Nothing.
Click to expand...
Why that is I wonder?

Oh eyeah it was force cancelled by Congress as unneed.

sferrin said:
Is that supposed to make the USN sound smarter?
Click to expand...
Yes cause they were trying to do the right thing but the Peanut gallery scream and rage about till it got cancelled on them.

Ut not the Navy fault but Congress.

sferrin said:
For a whole FOUR missiles. Again, is that supposed to make the USN sound smarter?
Click to expand...
Which is four more then the Korea or China has. Those max out at 28 inches. The Zumwalts are geting ones that are 34 plus inches. Cause hypersonics need bigger tubes then anything at sea besides the ICBMs to get NEAR the performance of the 1k Tomahawk.

The only thing a Hypersonic does better then a Tomahawk is get to the target faster. That it.


sferrin said:
Congress doesn't dictate cell size or weapons. They damn sure aren't going to fund anything with no proposals
Click to expand...
They dont even want to fund the proposals WE GOT if their is even a slight issue with them during development.

How many times were the Ford, F35, Virginia and Zumwalts were threaten or got cancel cause the media blow up a minor issue out of proportion?

Oh eyeah, lots. The Entire Military had to fight to get what it has.

And here we are, gashing and wailing bout not having the capabilities we want but dont have..

When we HAD THEM but we wail about how useless they were. So they were cancelled and removed. Cause Congresz believe us when we said they were useless and waste of funding.

And now everything has a surprise Pikachu face since it turns out that we really DID need them.

That is entirely on Congress for getting frightened over a little bad press and listening to the glorified peanut gallery instead of the expects in the services.

The Navy can do nothing bout that but lobby and that only goes so far. Doesn't matter how many proposals the Navy have if congress only pays for two of them. Or straight up dont believe that they are needed.
Click to expand...


"Congress, congress, congress." That's weak sauce. The USN is shit at making their case because they don't even know what their case IS. The Zumwalt hull has been meant from the start to form the basis of the Tico replacement. This was the case all the way back to the DD-21/SC-21 in the 90s and the USN still managed to fuck it up. As for 34" cells what good does that do you if you don't have enough to be useful? This is supposed to be a fighting ship against the likes of China and Russia not a dick-waving instrument against a pissant like North Korea.
 
It is always enlightening to read declassified papers on who recommended what and when but as a rule you can't see them for many years. Never assume the guy in uniform is at fault when there are politicians and their appointees involved. Even when the issue is the guy in uniform, that person is often a member of one of the various ideologically driven mafias.
 
Firefinder said:


When we HAD THEM but we wail about how useless they were. So they were cancelled and removed. Cause Congresz believe us when we said they were useless and waste of funding.

And now everything has a surprise Pikachu face since it turns out that we really DID need them.

That is entirely on Congress for getting frightened over a little bad press and listening to the glorified peanut gallery instead of the expects in the services.

The Navy can do nothing bout that but lobby and that only goes so far. Doesn't matter how many proposals the Navy have if congress only pays for two of them. Or straight up dont believe that they are needed.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry but this is made up history. the navy was the one who tried to convince congress that the ship was useless. there was significant push and even misinformation FROM the navy to reduce its capabilities, then argue that it's vulnerable because it didn't have the right weapons, even just straight up lie that its superstructure is unsuited for BMD type radars even though it was designed from get go to be a cruiser, even down to trivial thing like switching out a specifically designed for the ship 57mm guns for 30mm arguing that a smaller gun that is not integrated to main fire control system is somehow more capable.

edit: just toning down my own voice a bit.
 
Last edited:
news.usni.org

CNO Gilday: Industrial Capacity Largest Barrier to Growing the Fleet - USNI News

WASHINGTON, D.C. – The biggest barrier to adding more ships to the Navy is industrial base capacity, Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Mike Gilday said Thursday. The service’s top officer said shipbuilders need indicators from the service before they’re able to make the investments required to...
news.usni.org news.usni.org
We need so many “Manhattan Projects” I’ve lost count.
 
Hitting 80% on the design before construction begins is good, assuming no major headaches with the remaining 20% they will have achieved notable cost saving vs a conventional build program. Combined with the way they used the "parent hull" the program is doing pretty well avoiding some traditional cost sinks.
 
Moose said:
Hitting 80% on the design before construction begins is good, assuming no major headaches with the remaining 20% they will have achieved notable cost saving vs a conventional build program. Combined with the way they used the "parent hull" the program is doing pretty well avoiding some traditional cost sinks.
Click to expand...
Would starting with the Zumwalt hull vs a clean sheet (as the current plan seems to be) achieve something similar?
 
sferrin said:
Moose said:
Hitting 80% on the design before construction begins is good, assuming no major headaches with the remaining 20% they will have achieved notable cost saving vs a conventional build program. Combined with the way they used the "parent hull" the program is doing pretty well avoiding some traditional cost sinks.
Click to expand...
Would starting with the Zumwalt hull vs a clean sheet (as the current plan seems to be) achieve something similar?
Click to expand...
Maybe, it's not just whether you start with a hull it's how that hull is used. The FREMM hull had to grow to meet the Frigate program's requirements, but it had been designed to be flexible and the team seems to have done a good job getting it there. If they had chosen a less adaptable design or tried to cram the USN wishlist into 600 fewer tons, there would have been costly headaches.

On the new combatant, the Navy seems to be considering derivatives of Z, if their tank test models are to be believed, but their desires might be hard to dial into a design which was so heavily dedicated to signature reduction. They could do a study titled "let's see how affordable we can make a DDG-1000 Flight (X) with Aegis, lasers, and hypersonic weapons," then compare it to their preferred clean-sheet concept and find the latter is the more desirable option.
 
Adapting an existing hull for new systems has it back to front. Basically, you can incrementally improve and evolve a design to a degree, but you will reach the point where it is better value for money, as well as lower risk to design a new platform.

The physical platform structure is a very small fraction of the cost of the whole, the hull, plus propulsion and hotel systems is less than half the cost of the whole, so why would you compromise the capability of the combat systems by mounting them on an inferior, compromised platform?

Strategy defines the required capability,
capability defines the types, numbers, deployability and survivability of combat systems (the sensors, coms and weapons),
types, numbers deployability and survivability of combat systems, defines the number and individual characteristics of the platform.

By adapting an existing platform, you are starting with the compromise of "what of what we need can we fit in this existing envelope".
 
Volkodav said:
Adapting an existing hull for new systems has it back to front. Basically, you can incrementally improve and evolve a design to a degree, but you will reach the point where it is better value for money, as well as lower risk to design a new platform.

The physical platform structure is a very small fraction of the cost of the whole, the hull, plus propulsion and hotel systems is less than half the cost of the whole, so why would you compromise the capability of the combat systems by mounting them on an inferior, compromised platform?

Strategy defines the required capability,
capability defines the types, numbers, deployability and survivability of combat systems (the sensors, coms and weapons),
types, numbers deployability and survivability of combat systems, defines the number and individual characteristics of the platform.

By adapting an existing platform, you are starting with the compromise of "what of what we need can we fit in this existing envelope".
Click to expand...
Not just that, but by now the basic Zumwalt design is actually old enough that some components might be hard to source, since only three ships were ever build.

But lessons from the Zumwalt will certainly be taken into account, like it's integrated propulsion system, which seems to be a big success, and likewise the hull design actually seems to be quite capable, with the Zumwalts being good sea ships, a lot of people's crying of "MUH TUMBLEHOME!" notwithstanding.
 
DrRansom said:
sferrin said:
So, I guess the Ford class CVNs is being built in South Korea? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

It would be cheaper and easier to build Ford CVNs if the US still had a robust broad-spectrum shipbuilding industry. The manpower pool for engineering and construction would be larger and better than right now, where the only real ship-building is military.

The result appears on the margins: ship-building is more expensive and lengthier and less robust than China.
Click to expand...
One reason I wish Musk had bought a shipyard and went the Sea Dragon route...keep that base working.
 
news.usni.org

Report to Congress on Next-Generation Logistic Ship - USNI News

The following is the Aug. 29, 2022, Congressional Research Service In Focus report, Navy Next-Generation Logistics Ship (NGLS) Program. From the report The Navy’s Next-Generation Logistics Ship (NGLS) program envisages procuring new medium-sized at-sea resupply ships for the Navy. The Navy’s...
news.usni.org news.usni.org
 
Like about a dozen Columbia Class SSGNs each loaded with ~42 hypersonic strike missiles (that’s over 500 if anyone is counting) ;)
 
news.usni.org

Pentagon Accelerates Red Hill Defueling by Six Months - USNI News

The Department of Defense projects the Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility will be defueled six months earlier than previously announced, according to an update to the June 30 plan submitted Wednesday. The DoD previously submitted a defueling plan to the Hawaii Department of Health on June 30...
news.usni.org news.usni.org

You couldn't make this up. :rolleyes:
 
Thought we had a topic on the USN's Next-Generation Logistic Ship?

news.usni.org

Report to Congress on Next-Generation Logistic Ship - USNI News

The following is the Aug. 29, 2022, Congressional Research Service In Focus report, Navy Next-Generation Logistics Ship (NGLS) Program. From the report The Navy’s Next-Generation Logistics Ship (NGLS) program envisages procuring new medium-sized at-sea resupply ships for the Navy. The Navy’s...
news.usni.org news.usni.org
 
Since the Second World War surface actions between major surface units have been rare (an RN cruiser sinking an Egyptian ship in 1956 during the Suez crisis comes to mind).
In peacetime surface units are impressive and useful signs of political and sometimes humanitarian commitment.
In wartime they are destined to be sunk early on by enemy air or submarine forces.
I have a lot of sympathy for the modern naval planners who have to set the requirement for these ships.
Their cost has increased so that 26 Type12 Leander frigates were down to 13 Type23 Norfolk class by the 90s. Most navies can only afford four such ships.
No US commander alive today has ever fought a real action against an enemy surface vessel. (I may be wrong on this given the longevity of retired officers!).
 
uk 75 said:
Since the Second World War surface actions between major surface units have been rare (an RN cruiser sinking an Egyptian ship in 1956 during the Suez crisis comes to mind).
In peacetime surface units are impressive and useful signs of political and sometimes humanitarian commitment.
In wartime they are destined to be sunk early on by enemy air or submarine forces.
I have a lot of sympathy for the modern naval planners who have to set the requirement for these ships.
Their cost has increased so that 26 Type12 Leander frigates were down to 13 Type23 Norfolk class by the 90s. Most navies can only afford four such ships.
No US commander alive today has ever fought a real action against an enemy surface vessel. (I may be wrong on this given the longevity of retired officers!).
Click to expand...
The Tanker wars in 1988 come to mind which had both the USS Wainright and USS Simpson sinking a few Iranian Gunboats, with Standards and Harpoons. Doesn't seem like much but both sides were tossing Haproons at each other so it was a far enough fight in yhe eggs shells tossing sledge hammers at each other.

And it needs to be said that surface combatants still have a Massive use in the Escort Defense role, which is a role neither carriers or submarines can do. The Aegis system is extremely good at it job and you will lose a lot of missiles and planes taking it down.
 
There goes a 30 year old vet.

Expect to hear bout her scrapping in a few years as well...

Cause well...

30 year old salt water ships have issues.
 
I suspect the Ticos taken out of service stay afloat for a while as spare parts for the active fleet.

EDIT: well I guess the USN wants to decom the whole force; I had thought Congress had stopped them from doing that.
 
Josh_TN said:
I suspect the Ticos taken out of service stay afloat for a while as spare parts for the active fleet.

EDIT: well I guess the USN wants to decom the whole force; I had thought Congress had stopped them from doing that.
Click to expand...
The CGs have serious structural issues, cracking, sea water contamination etc. they are old ships, difficult to maintain and becoming increasingly unreliable. They are much older and in much worse condition than the Belknaps and Leahys were when they were retired, and the Spruances, with a similar but less stressed hull have been gone for almost 20 years.

The upgrades and life extensions are taking longer than planned, are more expensive than planned and are not fixing as much as they need to. It is getting to the point that the upgraded ships are more expensive to retain and are providing less capability than new DDGs and FFGs will. The biggest issue is even after extremely expensive upgrades and repairs, the ships are still not achieving the required availability.
 
I am intrigued to see what is done fitted VPMs to the DDG 1000s for hypersonic missiles. Will the design solution be suitable to incorporate into DDGs and FFGs as well?
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom