Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook

[johnpjones1775]

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.

Some defenses for the high end fight would be good, and still needs to have a use outside of a (near)peer conflict.

 

[Josh_TN]

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.

Aircraft do not have to remain in an area if the only goal is strike, and more over I’d argue HALE type drones have an excellent ability to remain in an area if the goal is reconnaissance. What does the FAC add? Its broadside is too small to be useful and its sensor range too short to accomplish anything. Its reload time is measured in days or weeks.

As for OTH engagements - the ability to ID targets from a distance, or even orbit, has increased by leaps and bounds. Previous AShM from decades ago have little bearing on the situation. The fact is that the primary surface launched AShM of the USN is now tomahawk.

ETA: USVs do a huge amount of peacetime work; read up on task force 59 in the mid east and the huge variety of platforms it uses. USVs are hardly limited to floating bombs.

 

[Josh_TN]

Some defenses for the high end fight would be good, and still needs to have a use outside of a (near)peer conflict.

I think you could easily put a RAM launcher and some decoys on a LUSV type and achieve a similar level of protection. I also see no reason why the vessel needs a non peer competitor mission. Are there specific missions you feel are not being fulfilled now?

 

[johnpjones1775]

Aircraft do not have to remain in an area if the only goal is strike, and more over I’d argue HALE type drones have an excellent ability to remain in an area if the goal is reconnaissance. What does the FAC add? Its broadside is too small to be useful and its sensor range too short to accomplish anything. Its reload time is measured in days or weeks.

As for OTH engagements - the ability to ID targets from a distance, or even orbit, has increased by leaps and bounds. Previous AShM from decades ago have little bearing on the situation. The fact is that the primary surface launched AShM of the USN is now tomahawk.

ETA: USVs do a huge amount of peacetime work; read up on task force 59 in the mid east and the huge variety of platforms it uses. USVs are hardly limited to floating bombs.

Denial, control, etc.

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.

ok, I really want to know where you got any of these numbers, because I just double checked my ship’s range. 4400miles…so reality proves you wrong.

 

[shin_getter]

This is a more legit mission than shooting missiles for ships

 

[Maskoki]

Denial, control, etc.

ok, I really want to know where you got any of these numbers, because I just double checked my ship’s range. 4400miles…so reality proves you wrong.

Another factor in the ship size debate is cost.

Generally, on a cost per VLS cell basis, the larger the ship, the cheaper. Building a bunch of small ships with limited carrying capacity is expensive VLS or deck-launcher-wise (but great for distributed maritime operations/lethality), while building a single mega-cruiser with 512 cells is cheap-per-cell (but impractical from a eggs-in-a-single basket/mission-kill perspective).

So the USN seeks a couple stabs at middle ground: Fast, gas-guzzling DDGs 96xVLS to escort the CVSGs, and slower FFGs 32xVLS to escort everything else.

Both need range for transit and west-of-Wake operations. With our logistics fleet minimalized over the decades, best if our ships have as much range (and therefore excess size to hold fuel) as possible.

In my opinion, the FFG ‘is’ your FAC. Anything smaller costs more on a per cell basis, and adds another manufacturing PEO to manage. Better to fix the FFG design, test the hell out of FFG-62, fix the design based on testing, contract for volume, and then build 150 FFGs over 40 years. They’ll be busy: Escorting the ARGs, escorting auxiliaries, escorting merchants/tankers fleeing or supplying the battle area, hunting PLAN subs, and enforcing the blockade across the Pacific & Indian oceans, not to mention helping out with the Russians in the North Atlantic.

And if you’re looking for something to lurk in the chokepoints, the Bab-el-Mandeb instructs us that this particular ‘FAC’ will have to be a destroyer to survive. Electronic signatures mean that there is no more ‘lurking,’ so the chokepoint fight is going to be a phone booth brawl (with the PLAN, PLAAF, & the SRF, simultaneously), should we choose to accept battle there.

 

[SK2]

…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…

The one massive nature show of force, real life, at war, telling both US Navy that they need to focus on vessel design on stability. The same happened to IJN 9 years earlier also.

Someone sail the Minnehaha around the globe doesn't mean it is always possible to sail a 14-feet boat in all weather, and current naval vessel design focus more on stability and ease of fatigue of crew, that's why you got frigate sized vessels fitted with corvette weapon set, and LCS concepts grew from 1800 tons to 3200 tons.

 

[Shoes31]

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.

Why do we need to design the LUSV around being comfortable on for long deployments or being able to operate alone?

I imagine a LUSV moving in a convoy with its manned controller ship. There will be very little to no crew on the ship, or the crew on the ship can relocate to the control ship during times of extreme weather events. So no creature comfort worries there.

And every single thing I can find on the LUSV from the Navy has them planned to work in tandem with crewed ships and rely on those ships sensors etc. I do not see a need for them at this time to operate alone, and the majority don't need large sensors or self defense suites - they will rely on the Frigates and Destroyers for those.

 

[TomS]

Why do we need to design the LUSV around being comfortable on for long deployments or being able to operate alone?

We don't. I was contrasting the LUSV with the notional 1000-ton FAC-M.

 

[Airbus A340]

How well have they thought the drone ship thing through? The goal is more capability. Here are some options:

1. Larger ships.
2. Cannons that can deliver guided munitions, either turreted or VGAS.
3. Reachback with munitions on aircraft.
4. Reachback with land-based munitions.
5. UNREP for missiles.
6. Tender type vessels that can anchor somewhere and the ships can go back to visit them for rearming/refueling.

Apparently 5 is very difficult to do. 6 requires a new ship type that either needs self-protection or has to be escorted.

7. An optionally crewed ship that carries missiles. The proposals I have seen have crew on them when they transit straits so they can repel boarders/pirates/fight terrorists etc. That's how they are thinking. Still stuck in the GWOT. Who maintains the engines and other systems? What about corrosion control? The temptation to equip these ships with additional systems is massive. Let's just put on some ESM. Now that we have some ESM, let's just add ECM. Let's add a direct line of sight commo link to the mother ship, then have the drone ship do the commo Since the drone will be honed in on by enemy ESM. Hey, maybe we could daisy chain the drone ships and have the commo emissions occur a long way from the mother ship. Since the drones are now so valuable more valuable, what about an SPQ-9B and RAM to protect them? At that point it starts to spiral into a frigate.

8. A cheaper crewed ship. Look at everything that costs $. Instead of building a 30-50 year hull, build the hull for 10-20 years, whatever the analysis says is cheaper. Commercial engines. Commercial standards instead of being built to take battle damage. What about acoustic signatures? They would need to do an analysis of how much the cost is vs how much it increases vulnerability, especially of mother ships the cheap ship is working with. What about ESM, ECM, sensors, etc.? The problem is that the Houthis have upped the game to where a survivable ship needs high end defenses against cruise and ballistic missiles. A few years back a radar scanning the horizon and cueing RAM would have been seen as enough. Now, the ship has to have enough radar capability to search the horizon close, the horizon far, and track at higher angles. It basically needs Aegis or a cheaper version of Aegis that will certainly be more expensive than what would have sufficed a decade ago. Once you add the AAW needed to survive, it might be more cost effective to just build a first class ship.

What about this? Declare the sea to be a no go zone until your nation's Reconnaissance Strike Complex beats the enemy complex down so hard that your ships can sail without needing to be involved in high intensity conflict? Only mopping up operations for the ships. The real war is satellites, drones and missiles.

 

[Hood]

USVs will ultimately end up like UCAVs - highly expensive specialised pieces of kit that don't actually cost that much less than its manned counterpart. Even UUV's are growing in size now into quite hefty minisubs.
They become less attritable the larger and more capable they become. A USV missile battery escort will have a very valuable cargo of missiles aboard (missiles cost millions), so losing one means losing a large and expensive arsenal of weapons probably equal to the cost of the USV itself.

 

[Maskoki]

USVs will ultimately end up like UCAVs - highly expensive specialised pieces of kit that don't actually cost that much less than its manned counterpart. Even UUV's are growing in size now into quite hefty minisubs.
They become less attritable the larger and more capable they become. A USV missile battery escort will have a very valuable cargo of missiles aboard (missiles cost millions), so losing one means losing a large and expensive arsenal of weapons probably equal to the cost of the USV itself.

Agreed.

What if PLA jams transmissions that control USVs remotely? Who controls the L/M-USV in that scenario? Can those missiles be used?

Optionally-manned feels like an LCS reboot - a small crew won’t be sufficient once the ship has to function on its own (possibly because PLA jamming prevents remote control). Just like Airbus 340 wrote regarding gear, with personnel, once you have a small crew, then you need a doctor, a cook, a skipper, a paint scraper…multiply by three watches and you’re a frigate crew.

 

[Ozair]

How well have they thought the drone ship thing through? The goal is more capability. Here are some options:

1. Larger ships.

Larger cost.

2. Cannons that can deliver guided munitions, either turreted or VGAS.

That is a great concept that fails in reality...

3. Reachback with munitions on aircraft.

The whole point is aircraft do not have the persistence that naval vessels do and the carriers cannot be all places at once.

4. Reachback with land-based munitions.

The tyranny of time, distance and resupply.

5. UNREP for missiles.

It is possible, again just fell out of favour due to cost. USN is thinking about it again which is at least a good thing.

6. Tender type vessels that can anchor somewhere and the ships can go back to visit them for rearming/refueling.

This isn't new, it just fell out of fashion due to cost. The issue with this is would potentially be merchant marine for the US and they have an even worse recruitment and retention issue than the USN.

7. An optionally crewed ship that carries missiles. The proposals I have seen have crew on them when they transit straits so they can repel boarders/pirates/fight terrorists etc. That's how they are thinking. Still stuck in the GWOT. Who maintains the engines and other systems? What about corrosion control? The temptation to equip these ships with additional systems is massive. Let's just put on some ESM. Now that we have some ESM, let's just add ECM. Let's add a direct line of sight commo link to the mother ship, then have the drone ship do the commo Since the drone will be honed in on by enemy ESM. Hey, maybe we could daisy chain the drone ships and have the commo emissions occur a long way from the mother ship. Since the drones are now so valuable more valuable, what about an SPQ-9B and RAM to protect them? At that point it starts to spiral into a frigate.
8. A cheaper crewed ship. Look at everything that costs $. Instead of building a 30-50 year hull, build the hull for 10-20 years, whatever the analysis says is cheaper. Commercial engines. Commercial standards instead of being built to take battle damage. What about acoustic signatures? They would need to do an analysis of how much the cost is vs how much it increases vulnerability, especially of mother ships the cheap ship is working with. What about ESM, ECM, sensors, etc.? The problem is that the Houthis have upped the game to where a survivable ship needs high end defenses against cruise and ballistic missiles. A few years back a radar scanning the horizon and cueing RAM would have been seen as enough. Now, the ship has to have enough radar capability to search the horizon close, the horizon far, and track at higher angles. It basically needs Aegis or a cheaper version of Aegis that will certainly be more expensive than what would have sufficed a decade ago. Once you add the AAW needed to survive, it might be more cost effective to just build a first class ship

The purpose of LUSV is to supplement manned vessels, not replace them. They would sail in concert with manned vessels. Initial vessels will be lightly manned, unmanned at this point is probably too far, and agree not built to last a lifetime. There are clear tactical considerations with which way you go, no point having a low RCS DDG-51 if it is accompanied by a blooming RCS LUSV but that is a tactical problem that can be solved.

What about this? Declare the sea to be a no go zone until your nation's Reconnaissance Strike Complex beats the enemy complex down so hard that your ships can sail without needing to be involved in high intensity conflict? Only mopping up operations for the ships. The real war is satellites, drones and missiles.

Or transition the entire fleet to submarines...

USVs will ultimately end up like UCAVs - highly expensive specialised pieces of kit that don't actually cost that much less than its manned counterpart. Even UUV's are growing in size now into quite hefty minisubs.
They become less attritable the larger and more capable they become. A USV missile battery escort will have a very valuable cargo of missiles aboard (missiles cost millions), so losing one means losing a large and expensive arsenal of weapons probably equal to the cost of the USV itself.

Sure but the point is the manned warship can use the LUSV's missiles first. Exhaust the LUSV, send it home and pick up another. That keeps the manned vessel in the fight longer and reduces the need for UNREP.

Agreed.

What if PLA jams transmissions that control USVs remotely? Who controls the L/M-USV in that scenario? Can those missiles be used?

The LUSV is not projected to go sailing off into the sunset by itself. Initial iterations will be close to manned vessels so LOS SHF/EHF comms would make jamming essentially impossible. Yes there are suggestions of smaller USVs that carry sensor payloads and have different missions more distant from the manned vessels but that would be handled differently. The current MUSV concept likely wouldn't carry weapons and be used as sensor nodes. I expect other than operating at EMCOM is it reasonably difficult to deny the entire EM spectrum to a naval vessel, especially as the satellite constellations increase in number.

Optionally-manned feels like an LCS reboot - a small crew won’t be sufficient once the ship has to function on its own (possibly because PLA jamming prevents remote control). Just like Airbus 340 wrote regarding gear, with personnel, once you have a small crew, then you need a doctor, a cook, a skipper, a paint scraper…multiply by three watches and you’re a frigate crew.

People and hulls are the two things the USN is struggling with more than anything else. USVs solve both of those issues by using less manpower to operate and increasing magazine depth for manned vessels.

 

[Firefinder]

That is a great concept that fails in reality...

Only if you follow the Navy.

They have fail at gun.

The Army on the otherhand?

They have had WILD SUCCESS.

Has fuse able to quarter the accuracy of a standard Shell, a Shell with half that accuracy itself. And Making a new shell that does that but twice the range.

All at a price of a Ship Fuel up. Hell for the Cost of a ESSM you can get enough PGK fuses for a quarter of a Burkes 400 shot 5 inch mag.

 

[Josh_TN]

USVs will ultimately end up like UCAVs - highly expensive specialised pieces of kit that don't actually cost that much less than its manned counterpart. Even UUV's are growing in size now into quite hefty minisubs.
They become less attritable the larger and more capable they become. A USV missile battery escort will have a very valuable cargo of missiles aboard (missiles cost millions), so losing one means losing a large and expensive arsenal of weapons probably equal to the cost of the USV itself.

Platform cost, even ammunition cost, is not the most relevant issue. Cost of ownership matters more, and for the USN, production cost in time is also a thing. A fully armed LUSV might approach the cost of a frigate (though I honestly doubt that) but it’s operating costs would be comparatively marginal and if it was produced at a yard not set up for regular military production, it enables more platforms in less time even if they are not dramatically less expensive on a hull by hull basis.

An optionally manned/unmanned platform does not have to be built to nearly as demanding specifications and likely would be based off a civilian design from an existing yard producing non military hulls.

 

[Josh_TN]

Agreed.

What if PLA jams transmissions that control USVs remotely? Who controls the L/M-USV in that scenario? Can those missiles be used?

Optionally-manned feels like an LCS reboot - a small crew won’t be sufficient once the ship has to function on its own (possibly because PLA jamming prevents remote control). Just like Airbus 340 wrote regarding gear, with personnel, once you have a small crew, then you need a doctor, a cook, a skipper, a paint scraper…multiply by three watches and you’re a frigate crew.

I would argue that every ship in the USN is useless without communications, manned or not. Do you think ABM defense is possible sans the entire satellite and radar network explicitly created to support that mission? If your lightly manned/unmanned ship is out of communication, you probably have a much bigger problem than the loss of a couple dozen launch cells.

 

[Josh_TN]

Only if you follow the Navy.

They have fail at gun.

The Army on the otherhand?

They have had WILD SUCCESS.

Has fuse able to quarter the accuracy of a standard Shell, a Shell with half that accuracy itself. And Making a new shell that does that but twice the range.

All at a price of a Ship Fuel up. Hell for the Cost of a ESSM you can get enough PGK fuses for a quarter of a Burkes 400 shot 5 inch mag.

No army gun has ranges that matter in the Pacific. In fact until PrSM, I do not think any U.S. Artillery system mattered in the Pacific. Where the USN might make much better use of its 5” guns is defensive counter air.

 

[Firefinder]

No army gun has ranges that matter in the Pacific. In fact until PrSM, I do not think any U.S. Artillery system mattered in the Pacific. Where the USN might make much better use of its 5” guns is defensive counter air.

And even there the Army is ahead with its 155mm air Defense Cannon which is to use standard shells with a different for of the PGK fuse to do air Intercepts out to 15km with option for a 40km with hypervelocity sabot shell.

Which is not bad at all and far further then what the navy can do.

The Navy will have an even easier time of making it since they already have all the gear integration unlike the Army.

Hell the USN even tested the hypervelocity shells back in 2017 irc and found them to be good to 20km in the 54cal 5 inchers, which is over double the current AA Range of those guns. Cut them do to a "lack of need".

Additional Layer of defense, especially a cheap one like Drones, is always useful.

 

[Jimmo952]

General Atomics Wins US Navy Contract to Advance LRMP - Naval News

General Atomics has been awarded a contract from the U.S. Navy for its Long Range Maneuvering Projectile (LRMP) Common Round.

www.navalnews.com

It's good to see the Navy pushing forward with development of this.

Range in anti-surface mode is 60-75km depending on quoted source.

 

[Josh_TN]

General Atomics Wins US Navy Contract to Advance LRMP - Naval News

General Atomics has been awarded a contract from the U.S. Navy for its Long Range Maneuvering Projectile (LRMP) Common Round.

www.navalnews.com

It's good to see the Navy pushing forward with development of this.

Range in anti-surface mode is 60-75km depending on quoted source.

Though notably not in 127mm.

 

[Jimmo952]

Though notably not in 127mm.

If the round is successful, 127mm is expected to follow.

With the ongoing Red Sea turkey shoot underway, I'd think the case for enhancing the utility of the 5" gun would get a boost.

 

[Josh_TN]

If the round is successful, 127mm is expected to follow.

With the ongoing Red Sea turkey shoot underway, I'd think the case for enhancing the utility of the 5" gun would get a boost.

This weapon would have zero A2A capabilities.

 

[H_K]

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.
1000-1500ton range
8 NSMs, a MK110, RAM, maybe some mk38s, sea giraffe radar.

Sounds similar to my 1,800ton / 290ft Patrol Corvette concept.

This was basically my attempt to take a proven OPV design (Gowind 87m / 1,500 tons), adding stealthy superstructures, a corvette weapons fit and more powerful engines. Hard to go much smaller if you want true blue water capability and range.

I've seen a sketch concept published by Naval Group that looks a lot like this, so I believe it's feasible. The result is actually quite similar to a German K130, but with longer legs and better seakeeping.

D: 1,800 tons
Dim: 88.5 x 14 x 3.3m (overall), 87 x 12.7m (waterline)
S: 26-27 kts on diesels (2x 6.5 or 7.4MW MTU 20V1163)
10 kts electric mode (2x 360 KWe)
R: 6,000 nm @ 15 kts
Crew: 55 pax / 30 days supply

Guns: 1x 57mm or 76mm main gun, 2x 30x113mm Bushmaster
SUW: 4x or 8x anti-ship missiles
AAW: 1x RAM launcher (21x SAMs)
ASW: Bow sonar + optional VDS & 2x triple torpedo tubes on flight deck
Modular stern bay for 1 or 2x 30ft RHIBs/USVs + 2x 20ft containers
Hangar for 1x helo or 2x UAVs



Here's a comparison to an NSC cutter and FFG-62:

 

[Maskoki]

Sounds similar to my 1,800ton / 290ft Patrol Corvette concept.

This was basically my attempt to take a proven OPV design (Gowind 87m / 1,500 tons), adding stealthy superstructures, a corvette weapons fit and more powerful engines. Hard to go much smaller if you want true blue water capability and range.

I've seen a sketch concept published by Naval Group that looks a lot like this, so I believe it's feasible. The result is actually quite similar to a German K130, but with longer legs and better seakeeping.

D: 1,800 tons
Dim: 88.5 x 14 x 3.3m (overall), 87 x 12.7m (waterline)
S: 26-27 kts on diesels (2x 6.5 or 7.4MW MTU 20V1163)
10 kts electric mode (2x 360 KWe)
R: 6,000 nm @ 15 kts
Crew: 55 pax / 30 days supply

Guns: 1x 57mm or 76mm main gun, 2x 30x113mm Bushmaster
SUW: 4x or 8x anti-ship missiles
AAW: 1x RAM launcher (21x SAMs)
ASW: Bow sonar + optional VDS & 2x triple torpedo tubes on flight deck
Modular stern bay for 1 or 2x 30ft RHIBs/USVs + 2x 20ft containers
Hangar for 1x helo or 2x UAVs

View attachment 750987

Here's a comparison to an NSC cutter and FFG-62:
View attachment 750974

@ H_K

I think I’ve seen your posts in the extensive TapaTalk ‘Design a Corvette’ thread. Great conversation there & solid points made by you.

Is your Gowind design using the shortest hull but with the displacement of the mid-range version? I have trouble mentally squeezing 6,000 nm out of that arrangement if the original Gowind ranged ~3,700nm. If you lengthen the hull to 100+ meters, then you’d be closer to a 6k range, no?

Everytime I run numbers and draw stuff, I revert back to the US just needing bigger ships for everything, based on USN standards, our range needs, and the fact that I can’t stop trying to squeeze in a 16-ton 8-cell Mk.41 VLS to permit the skipper to threaten long distance drones & patrol plane snoopers w/ESSMs, and add to the AAW magazine in general.

This usually brings me to adapting the 12,000 nm NSC (with it already mounting the Mk.110, Phalanx, TRS-3D, SPQ-9B, Mk.20 EO/IR, & SLQ-32), cutting down its superior range with navalization, the VLS, an RWS, modest hangar & flight deck restructuring to handle an MH-60R, & either AShM deck launchers or an ASW tail. Still leaves a nice balance of gear & range.

But the question becomes: Would an incrementally funded Navy open another PEO for an NSC-based corvette @ ~$750 MM (my guess, if we buy a large block), or just max-produce FFG-62s hoping to shrink the per-FFG cost under ~$1.0 BB with a big volume buy?

 

[Maskoki]

Larger cost.

That is a great concept that fails in reality...

The whole point is aircraft do not have the persistence that naval vessels do and the carriers cannot be all places at once.

The tyranny of time, distance and resupply.

It is possible, again just fell out of favour due to cost. USN is thinking about it again which is at least a good thing.

This isn't new, it just fell out of fashion due to cost. The issue with this is would potentially be merchant marine for the US and they have an even worse recruitment and retention issue than the USN.

The purpose of LUSV is to supplement manned vessels, not replace them. They would sail in concert with manned vessels. Initial vessels will be lightly manned, unmanned at this point is probably too far, and agree not built to last a lifetime. There are clear tactical considerations with which way you go, no point having a low RCS DDG-51 if it is accompanied by a blooming RCS LUSV but that is a tactical problem that can be solved.

Or transition the entire fleet to submarines...

Sure but the point is the manned warship can use the LUSV's missiles first. Exhaust the LUSV, send it home and pick up another. That keeps the manned vessel in the fight longer and reduces the need for UNREP.

The LUSV is not projected to go sailing off into the sunset by itself. Initial iterations will be close to manned vessels so LOS SHF/EHF comms would make jamming essentially impossible. Yes there are suggestions of smaller USVs that carry sensor payloads and have different missions more distant from the manned vessels but that would be handled differently. The current MUSV concept likely wouldn't carry weapons and be used as sensor nodes. I expect other than operating at EMCOM is it reasonably difficult to deny the entire EM spectrum to a naval vessel, especially as the satellite constellations increase in number.

People and hulls are the two things the USN is struggling with more than anything else. USVs solve both of those issues by using less manpower to operate and increasing magazine depth for manned vessels.

No doubt - we suck acquiring people and hulls right now, and once proven, LUSV could address both.

We also suck at maintenance, which, as LCS proved, at least early on, gets worse when we don’t have enough bodies aboard to maintain the gear.

I get that LUSV is adjunct to crewed warships, and every ounce of me wants LUSVs to work as-hoped, but if there is no one (or comparatively few) aboard, how does underway maintenance happen?

Thanks for pointing out that there is a way to control an adjunct LUSV even when jammed. Not sure if that is thanks to freq-hopping or some other wizardry, but if we can solve the maintenance quandary, maybe this LUSV can help us convince the PLAN not to risk it…

 

[H_K]

Is your Gowind design using the shortest hull but with the displacement of the mid-range version? I have trouble mentally squeezing 6,000 nm out of that arrangement if the original Gowind ranged ~3,700nm.

My starting point is the 1,500 ton / 87m Gowind OPV design (formerly “l’Adroit” now Bouchard class in Argentinian service). These have a fairly generous fuel capacity of 250m3 (210 tons) which allows for a range of over 8,000 nm @ 12 knots

This translates to roughly ~6,000nm @ 15 knots, 4,700nm @ 18 knots, or ~4,000nm @ 20 knots.

I’m assuming a small increase in displacement (slightly increased beam at the waterline and longer bow forward, to improve seakeeping and top end speed) which wouldn’t impact range as this also allows for more fuel tankage.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Though notably not in 127mm.

Or USN finally gives up on 127mm and steps up to 155mm/L52 NATO-standard. Do like the ERCA, pack the Charge Super into a brass or composite case that is roughly the length of your standard 155mm shell and do two loading ops per firing cycle.

And punt the things out at whatever the fastest MV that copper driving bands can tolerate for ammo compatibility.

 

[Josh_TN]

Or USN finally gives up on 127mm and steps up to 155mm/L52 NATO-standard. Do like the ERCA, pack the Charge Super into a brass or composite case that is roughly the length of your standard 155mm shell and do two loading ops per firing cycle.

And punt the things out at whatever the fastest MV that copper driving bands can tolerate for ammo compatibility.

It seems extremely clear there is no 155mm on the horizon. There won’t even be a potential platform for it outside DDGX, and the USN has zero interest in new calibers. 57mm and 127mm or nothing.

 

[H_K]

Sounds similar to my 1,800ton / 290ft Patrol Corvette concept.

This was basically my attempt to take a proven OPV design (Gowind 87m / 1,500 tons), adding stealthy superstructures, a corvette weapons fit and more powerful engines. Hard to go much smaller if you want true blue water capability and range.

I've seen a sketch concept published by Naval Group that looks a lot like this, so I believe it's feasible. The result is actually quite similar to a German K130, but with longer legs and better seakeeping.

D: 1,800 tons
Dim: 88.5 x 14 x 3.3m (overall), 87 x 12.7m (waterline)
S: 26-27 kts on diesels (2x 6.5 or 7.4MW MTU 20V1163)
10 kts electric mode (2x 360 KWe)
R: 6,000 nm @ 15 kts
Crew: 55 pax / 30 days supply

Guns: 1x 57mm or 76mm main gun, 2x 30x113mm Bushmaster
SUW: 4x or 8x anti-ship missiles
AAW: 1x RAM launcher (21x SAMs)
ASW: Bow sonar + optional VDS & 2x triple torpedo tubes on flight deck
Modular stern bay for 1 or 2x 30ft RHIBs/USVs + 2x 20ft containers
Hangar for 1x helo or 2x UAVs

View attachment 750987

For what it's worth, here's a cleaned up view of my 1,800 ton patrol corvette concept and comparison to NSC and FFG-62:

 

[Scott Kenny]

It seems extremely clear there is no 155mm on the horizon. There won’t even be a potential platform for it outside DDGX, and the USN has zero interest in new calibers. 57mm and 127mm or nothing.

Then why did the USN fund ammo development for NATO-standard 155mm guns?

 

[TomS]

Then why did the USN fund ammo development for NATO-standard 155mm guns?

Because the Navy funds a lot of ordnance engineering for the Marine Corps.

Also, in this case, GA used their own IR&D money to develop this round for 155mm, and the Navy is probably trying to avoid reinventing the wheel until they are convinced of the basic concept. So they do proof -of-concept with the existing 155mm design and decide whether it's worth investing even more to rescale it to 127mm.

 

[Josh_TN]

Then why did the USN fund ammo development for NATO-standard 155mm guns?

I assume for the USMC. What ship could they possibly install a 155mm on?

 

[Firefinder]

In Theory the Navy could bring back the AGS light design which can fit on the Burkes.

heck the Brits result used the automatic handing system from the Zumwalts AGS for their new Type 26s which uses the standard 5 inch shell. So you can get it to work with the standard Ammo unlike what the USN said.

 

[Scott Kenny]

I assume for the USMC. What ship could they possibly install a 155mm on?

Not used to the USMC buying bespoke anything besides Harriers/F-35Bs and AAV-7s.

A 155mm L52 would be an easy build, just needs an encased propellant charge instead of bagged. Which makes designing the breechblock even simpler because the brass case provides sealing instead of needing a dedicated piece to do that.

 

[Josh_TN]

Not used to the USMC buying bespoke anything besides Harriers/F-35Bs and AAV-7s.

A 155mm L52 would be an easy build, just needs an encased propellant charge instead of bagged. Which makes designing the breechblock even simpler because the brass case provides sealing instead of needing a dedicated piece to do that.

Practically everything in USMC inventory is bespoke. The days of US Army hand me downs are long gone.

 

[jsport]

https://news.usni.org/2024/12/17/landing-ship-medium-program-stalled-over-price-navy-cancels-industry-rfp?utm_campaign=dfn-ebb&utm_medium=email&utm_source=sailthru

 

[jsport]

US Navy ‘wasted’ $1.8 billion on cruiser modernization program: Report

The report found that the Navy’s cruiser rehab program has had “weak oversight” and been “plagued with ... delays, wasted costs and poor-quality work.”

www.navytimes.com

 

[Ozair]

US Navy ‘wasted’ $1.8 billion on cruiser modernization program: Report

The report found that the Navy’s cruiser rehab program has had “weak oversight” and been “plagued with ... delays, wasted costs and poor-quality work.”

www.navytimes.com

The headline should read Congress makes Navy waste 1.8 Billion on cruiser modernisation by not allowing them to retire the fleet when they wanted to...

The system is flawed when Congress keeps intervening thinking they know better than the respective services who actually manage and balance their budgets.

 

[Josh_TN]

The headline should read Congress makes Navy waste 1.8 Billion on cruiser modernisation by not allowing them to retire the fleet when they wanted to...

The system is flawed when Congress keeps intervening thinking they know better than the respective services who actually manage and balance their budgets.

This. The USN said, “these ships are gone and we shouldn’t waste the money” , and Congress explicitly said “waste the money “. That the program was not executed correctly is kinda like making a case for corn ethanol: it makes no sound economic sense, but the U.S. Congress decrees it, so failure is not just an option but inevitable. And in fact, for thier districts, a feature.

 

[donnage99]

Just consider that industries are now upcharging based on projected delays from government shutdown circus we have in congress every year.

China is building for projected 15+ years plan. This is the advantage of an authoritarian govt headed by a dictator for life. Ours get switched up by hotshots too eager to prove the last administration's incompetence every 4 years.

The extreme partisanship and over simplification of government in the public sphere basically immobilize members of congress too afraid to lose their seats the next election cycle not to mention more than a few nutjobs voted in by nutjob voters made nutjobs by the nutjob media they consumed.

We produce 70k engineers each year while china 1.5 million. There are multiple compensating factors but nothing can compensate for the sheer size difference.

We have to just make the painful decision that winning the pacific war is top and only priority and move towards building a coalition of multinational industrial base - AUKUS on steroid.