Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook

Grey Havoc said:
www.defensenews.com

Navy identifies three vessels impacted by faulty shipyard weld work

The bad welds are not on components that would impact ship safety or operations, but the Navy said it is reviewing at least 23 potentially impacted ships.
www.defensenews.com www.defensenews.com

One suspects that the problem is much worse than the Navy is admitting.
Click to expand...
"Why should I care, I'm not going out to sea on it"

Some (all the expletives deleted) shipyard worked said that on a sub, within earshot of the crew.

Fortunately(?), the Captain also heard him say that and had the worker escorted off before the crew "adjusted his attitude" for him. With the extra large spanners we use to manually run the MBT vent valves.
 
Scott Kenny said:
"Why should I care, I'm not going out to sea on it"

Some (all the expletives deleted) shipyard worked said that on a sub, within earshot of the crew.

Fortunately(?), the Captain also heard him say that and had the worker escorted off before the crew "adjusted his attitude" for him. With the extra large spanners we use to manually run the MBT vent valves.
Click to expand...

EB used to send some of the construction crew out to sea for the first dive. Which should have made them more diligent, but the tales of "lunch hour" at the bars across from the plant in Groton make me suspect it did not quite work as intended.
 
Ozair said:
Long time coming and glad even a basic capability is almost here. I'd hate to have to swap out all the cells at once, would take too long likely right when you needed it...
Click to expand...

Between pulling the old canisters and loading new missiles, it's probably an all-day evolution.
 
Ozair said:
I have visions of old canisters being slugged over the side to speed up the process. Obviously not a peace time practise...
Click to expand...

Problem is that the canister handling rig travels on the UNREP ship and gets high-lined across. Which means the receiving ship has no way to even start pulling the empties until it's alongside. Even if you are dumping them (and why not? Every missile comes with a new canister anyway) it still takes hours to ready the cells to receive new missiles.

Hmm. The planning estimate (earlier in this thread) was that you could strike down 15-20 new missiles per hour using this technique. Generously assume pulling old ones goes twice as fast. A DDG that has emptied half its magazine (48 missiles) might need an hour or more to remove the old ones and another 2-3 hours to reload new. That's actually not as bad as I thought -- only 4 -5 hours plus time to transfer and set up the loading rig, then remove it and return it to the UNREP ship. Maybe 6 hours alongside is everything goes smoothly.
 
TomS said:
EB used to send some of the construction crew out to sea for the first dive. Which should have made them more diligent, but the tales of "lunch hour" at the bars across from the plant in Groton make me suspect it did not quite work as intended.
Click to expand...
The only sub that I questioned the integrity of was Kentucky, which had been built by a bunch of scabs in the 1980s. EB workers went on strike. Whole ship was built by strikebreakers. Shit installed upside down or backwards. Piss poor material condition for a ship that was 10 years old. FFS, the Georgia was older and in better shape!

The west coast Tridents were in very good shape, as shown when the USN realized that they still had 20+ years hull life remaining when an arms treaty insisted that we retire 4. Hence SSGNs.
 
Grey Havoc said:
www.forbes.com

How A Small Cap Juggernaut Is Retooling The Power Grid And Helping Navy Ships Avoid Mines

Nearly 14 years ago, Wall Street wrote American Superconductor off for dead after a Chinese customer stole its tech and sales plunged. In the last year, its stock nearly tripled, but some institutions think its comeback may be just beginning.
www.forbes.com www.forbes.com
Click to expand...
In the last 12 months shares of little known Massachusetts-based American Superconductor have soared 276%. No, American Superconductor is not some sizzling hot new AI company. It is an old tech up-and comer, born in the kitchen of an MIT professor almost 40 years ago. It makes specialty wires, and other electronic gear mostly used by power companies and manufacturers— critical infrastructure for the nation’s power grid in the rush toward renewable energy. Its products have been in high demand before, but it has never delivered anything but red ink since its inception as its stock has soared and crashed numerous times over the last 30-plus years. Bullish Wall Street analysts now say the company’s bets on new businesses—like its Ship Protection Systems (SPS) which cloak naval vessels, protecting them from detection and mines—are starting to pay off.
Click to expand...
 
Not going to read 50 pages of replies, but I think smaller, stealthier, more maneuverable ships should be a fleet’s primary offensive punch, with solid self defense AAW.

Basically a large blue water FAC-M.
 
johnpjones1775 said:
Not going to read 50 pages of replies, but I think smaller, stealthier, more maneuverable ships should be a fleet’s primary offensive punch, with solid self defense AAW.

Basically a large blue water FAC-M.
Click to expand...

Even a "large FAC-M" cannot safely self-deploy across the Pacific. Absolute minimum size is probably more corvette-like. And without aviation capability, it has its hands tied behind its back in the modern era.
 
TomS said:
Even a "large FAC-M" cannot safely self-deploy across the Pacific. Absolute minimum size is probably more corvette-like. And without aviation capability, it has its hands tied behind its back in the modern era.
Click to expand...
That seems to be the size the USN is pursuing.

LUSV. The Navy envisions LUSVs as being 200 feet to 300 feet in length and having full load displacements of 1,000 tons to 2,000 tons, which would make them the size of a corvette (i.e., a ship larger than a patrol craft and smaller than a frigate).The Navy wants LUSVs to be low-cost, high-endurance, reconfigurable ships with ample capacity for carrying various modular payloads—particularly anti-surface warfare (ASuW) and strike payloads, meaning principally anti-ship and land attack missiles. Each LUSV could be equipped with a vertical launch system (VLS) with 16 to 32 missile-launching tubes. Although referred to as unmanned vehicles, LUSVs might be more accurately described as optionally or lightly manned ships, because they might sometimes have a few onboard crew members, particularly in the nearer term as the Navy works out LUSV enabling technologies and operational concepts. The Navy has been using LUSV prototypes to develop LUSV operational concepts. The Navy’s FY2025 budget submission programs the procurement of production LUSVs through the Navy’s shipbuilding account, with the first LUSV to be procured in FY2027 at an estimated cost of $497.6 million, the next two in FY2028 at a combined estimated cost of $652.8 million (i.e., an average of about $326.4 million each), and the next three in FY2029 at a combined estimated cost of $994.3 million (i.e., an average of $331.4 million each). Under the Navy’sFY2024 budget submission, procurement of LUSVs was to begin two years earlier, in FY2025. The Navy states: “This necessary [two-year] delay reduces risk associated with concurrency in requirements development, design specifications and machinery reliability testing.”
Click to expand...

The Dutch are going smaller with their new vessels which is IMO a class leading first to lightly and then unmanned. At only 600t and 174 feet long it probably suits their operational environment better than the long distances of the Pacific the USN is focused on.
www.twz.com

New Dutch Navy Support Vessels Will Be Missile-Toting Wingmen To Frigates

Small and with a tiny crew, the new support vessels will add important magazine capacity to frigates, and launch loitering munitions. Small and with a tiny crew, the new support vessels will add important magazine capacity to frigates, and launch loitering munitions.
www.twz.com www.twz.com
 
Big issue with trying to go small for the US is well..

Look at a Map.

Its over 2000 miles east to the nearest Problem Area over there in Europe, and its damn near triple that to the West to Asia.

A US Ship is going to need at least 5000 miles of range to get that far with UNREP, and the USN perfers slightly more indepence then that so it perfer to be over 6000 miles. Throw in the need to keep up with the CVNs? We are looking at doing 20 knots at cruise at least, again 30 is perferable. With 20 be the hard low limit since that makes Submarines lives miserable.

That is going to require an over 2000 ton vessel to do that before adding in the expensive shit like Radar, EWAR, Weapons.
 
TomS said:
Even a "large FAC-M" cannot safely self-deploy across the Pacific. Absolute minimum size is probably more corvette-like. And without aviation capability, it has its hands tied behind its back in the modern era.
Click to expand...
…1000ton DDs crossed the pacific in the 20s and 30s so idk where you got that idea…but with underway replenishment the only requirement to cross the pacific is be stable enough not get swamped or capsized in rough seas.
 
Firefinder said:
Big issue with trying to go small for the US is well..

Look at a Map.

Its over 2000 miles east to the nearest Problem Area over there in Europe, and its damn near triple that to the West to Asia.

A US Ship is going to need at least 5000 miles of range to get that far with UNREP, and the USN perfers slightly more indepence then that so it perfer to be over 6000 miles. Throw in the need to keep up with the CVNs? We are looking at doing 20 knots at cruise at least, again 30 is perferable. With 20 be the hard low limit since that makes Submarines lives miserable.
Click to expand...
Absolutely agree here, trying to chase a 20+knot target in a sub is an exercise in aggravation.


Firefinder said:
That is going to require an over 2000 ton vessel to do that before adding in the expensive shit like Radar, EWAR, Weapons.
Click to expand...
I honestly expect that the LUSVs are going to end up in the Fletcher/Sumner/Gearing size class, 2000/2200/2600 tons standard displacement. That gives you something big enough to have a flight deck, whatever you want to mount for AShMs, ASW gear, and your self-defense AA suite.
 
Firefinder said:
Big issue with trying to go small for the US is well..

Look at a Map.

Its over 2000 miles east to the nearest Problem Area over there in Europe, and its damn near triple that to the West to Asia.

A US Ship is going to need at least 5000 miles of range to get that far with UNREP, and the USN perfers slightly more indepence then that so it perfer to be over 6000 miles. Throw in the need to keep up with the CVNs? We are looking at doing 20 knots at cruise at least, again 30 is perferable. With 20 be the hard low limit since that makes Submarines lives miserable.

That is going to require an over 2000 ton vessel to do that before adding in the expensive shit like Radar, EWAR, Weapons.
Click to expand...
Cyclones sailed themselves to Bahrain…sooo…what’s the issue?
Same for the small CG cutters currently in Bahrain…I’d bet the avengers also sailed there themselves…
All that being said, even if we take you premise and assume it’s accurate they could be transported on special ships meant for transporting other ships…so they can be forward deployed to one of our overseas bases and can operate from bases in the problem areas…that’s kinda the whole reason we have so many bases around the world.
Where does this 2000ton size come from?
Wickes and Clemson class destroyers managed to get from the US to China and the Philippines. How do you think they did that?

Edit
Not to mention the la Combattante IIa FAC-M has a range of 1500nmi at less than 700tons.
I’m not advocating anything remotely that small…
 
johnpjones1775 said:
…1000ton DDs crossed the pacific in the 20s and 30s so idk where you got that idea…but with underway replenishment the only requirement to cross the pacific is be stable enough not get swamped or capsized in rough seas.
Click to expand...
1500 tons, and they were rapidly discarded in WW2 as being too small to mount everything required.
 
Scott Kenny said:
1500 tons, and they were rapidly discarded in WW2 as being too small to mount everything required.
Click to expand...
There weren’t discarded in WWII…they were widely used, and sure they were pretty obsolete but the criticism of size was about range and ability to cross the pacific or the Atlantic, which they were completely capable of doing.

So people making these wild ass claims that a ship needs to be at least 2000tons to have the necessary range is obviously false.
That being said idk what these people think a ‘large’ FAC-M would be for size, considering most modern FAC-M are already pushing 1000+ tons.
 
As for size=range
Sa’ar 4 class 450 tons, 4000 miles at 17.5kts.
Kralj class 390tons, 2000miles at 18kts
Island class cutter 168tons, 2900miles

As for large FAC-M for me that would be the 1000-1500ton range.
And I see it coming now “BuT tHaTs CoRvEtTe SiZeD!”
Sure if it were the 1970s it would be, but most modern corvettes are 2000+ tons.
 
johnpjones1775 said:
…1000ton DDs crossed the pacific in the 20s and 30s so idk where you got that idea…but with underway replenishment the only requirement to cross the pacific is be stable enough not get swamped or capsized in rough seas.
Click to expand...

You would think so. And yet, this happened:

en.wikipedia.org

Typhoon Cobra - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

So no, WW2-size destroyers probably are not acceptably safe for Pacific operations today. Sure, actually using compensated fuel tanks will avoid much of the hazard, but ships that size are still very uncomfortable on long deployments.

And despite the LUSV concept, I very much doubt that you can equip a ship of <1000 tons adequately for open-ocean warfare (especially with crew). LUSV is just a remote magazine for another ship, after all, and has essentially no sensors and very little crew accommodation. It can't self-defend against air or sub threats, has no aviation capability, and cannot operate independently at all.
 
TomS said:
You would think so. And yet, this happened:

en.wikipedia.org

Typhoon Cobra - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

So no, WW2-size destroyers probably are not acceptably safe for Pacific operations today. Sure, actually using compensated fuel tanks will avoid much of the hazard, but ships that size are still very uncomfortable on long deployments.

And despite the LUSV concept, I very much doubt that you can equip a ship of <1000 tons adequately for open-ocean warfare (especially with crew). LUSV is just a remote magazine for another ship, after all, and has essentially no sensors and very little crew accommodation. It can't self-defend against air or sub threats, has no aviation capability, and cannot operate independently at all.
Click to expand...
…so one example of a massive storm somehow invalidates everything that actually happened in real life? Ok.

The navy doesn’t even want Burkes dealing with typhoons and hurricanes…
 
Also what do you mean by open ocean warfare?
I’m literally just advocating for a large FAC.
8 NSMs, a MK110, RAM, maybe some mk38s, sea giraffe radar.

They can be built in many more domestic shipyards, they’d be very cheap to build and man, and they could be everywhere.

Americans need to get over the idea that every ship needs to be some super duper weapon. Ships will be lost, and I’d rather the enemy waste their missiles on the cheapest ships we have than on our $1-6b ships.
 
johnpjones1775 said:
Also what do you mean by open ocean warfare?
I’m literally just advocating for a large FAC.
8 NSMs, a MK110, RAM, maybe some mk38s, sea giraffe radar.

They can be built in many more domestic shipyards, they’d be very cheap to build and man, and they could be everywhere.

Americans need to get over the idea that every ship needs to be some super duper weapon. Ships will be lost, and I’d rather the enemy waste their missiles on the cheapest ships we have than on our $1-6b ships.
Click to expand...

If the goal is merely to sink other ships and completely ignore the escort mission, I’d argue there are far better means for accomplishing that than anything FAC like. Aircraft, subs, super long ranged missiles, or even small USVs now adays are better anti shipping platforms. The Ukrainians have managed to put the Black Sea Fleet into a box with no ships at all.

LUSV is effectively a magazine extension for fleet vessels that can also function as an offboard ECM platform and decoy. Their mission is not at all FAC like; they are not expected to accomplish anything independently.

ETA: what you seem to be advocating for is LCS.
 
johnpjones1775 said:
Also what do you mean by open ocean warfare?
I’m literally just advocating for a large FAC.
8 NSMs, a MK110, RAM, maybe some mk38s, sea giraffe radar.

They can be built in many more domestic shipyards, they’d be very cheap to build and man, and they could be everywhere.

Americans need to get over the idea that every ship needs to be some super duper weapon. Ships will be lost, and I’d rather the enemy waste their missiles on the cheapest ships we have than on our $1-6b ships.
Click to expand...
Why go so bespoke. Why not utilize the Mk70 shipping container launcher and then it just becomes an exercise in deck space. Build a few of the bespoke but for the bulk they should just be seen as payload carriers. One vessel with 6 deck housed Mk70 launchers becomes the modern Liberty ship equivalent. It also lets you use all the infrastructure already established for the container industry.
 
Josh_TN said:
If the goal is merely to sink other ships and completely ignore the escort mission, I’d argue there are far better means for accomplishing that than anything FAC like. Aircraft, subs, super long ranged missiles, or even small USVs now adays are better anti shipping platforms. The Ukrainians have managed to put the Black Sea Fleet into a box with no ships at all.

LUSV is effectively a magazine extension for fleet vessels that can also function as an offboard ECM platform and decoy. Their mission is not at all FAC like; they are not expected to accomplish anything independently.

ETA: what you seem to be advocating for is LCS.
Click to expand...
Aircraft have poor capability to remain in an area.
I’m still not sold on range being all it’s cracked up to be. To date the longest ranged surface to surface missile launch hasn’t even come close to the maximum range of the missiles, and even then we’ve seen navies misidentifying ships just over the horizon and hitting civilian ships with missiles.
USVs can’t do the same peacetime missions that the fleet is constantly called upon.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom