Register here

Author Topic: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook  (Read 56506 times)

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9705
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« on: November 20, 2014, 06:48:51 pm »
"Change missile-fighting concepts, add lasers and railguns on ships, expert urges"
Nov. 17, 2014 - 03:45AM   | 
By CHRISTOPHER P. CAVAS

Source:
http://www.defensenews.com/article/20141117/DEFSECT03/311170019

Quote
WASHINGTON — Commanders of Aegis-equipped cruisers and destroyers long have been confident in their ability to detect, engage and destroy incoming enemy missiles, often employing a layered strategy to hit threats at long, medium and short ranges. That’s key to one of their prime missions, protecting an aircraft carrier from enemy attack.

But there’s a catch. Under a doctrine that shoots two missiles at each incoming weapon, and with missile magazines that carry about a 100 missiles or so, the flow of defensive weapons is likely to run dry in a short time.

“A cruiser or destroyer will exhaust its missiles relatively quickly against incoming missiles — about 50 incoming missiles will use up the inventory of air-defense weapons,” said Bryan Clark, a naval analyst with the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments (CSBA) in Washington.

Even worse, Clark pointed out, a warship’s most effective defensive weapons — expensive long-range SM-6 Standard missiles — will probably be used up first, since they’ll be engaging missiles further away. An opponent could saturate a carrier strike group with cheap missiles, using up the defenses, then strike with effective weapons that would wipe out the carrier and its escorts.

One potential enemy weapon, the BrahMos cruise missile developed by India and Russia and available for export, has a unit price of about $2.5 million, Clark pointed out, while each SM-6 missile runs around $4 million apiece. “Shooting two SM-6s at each BrahMos is a poor exchange,” he observed.

To counter these threats, “we need a new defensive anti-air warfare (AAW) concept,” Clark told reporters Monday in a preview of a new study in which he urges the US Navy to “reinvigorate” surface warfare.

“We need to shift to a single, dense defensive, close-in AAW layer rather than a layered approach,” he urged, suggesting an engagement range of about thirty nautical miles.

“Current air defense schemes are based on fallacies and wishful thinking,” Clark, a former top adviser to chief of naval operations Adm. Jonathan Greenert, said. “Using my most expensive, biggest weapons first leaves only cheap, close-in weapons.” A shift to 30 nautical miles, he added, takes advantage of cheaper interceptors that can be carried in larger numbers, relying on the ability of the Aegis system’s fire control abilities to hit their targets.

Holding back Standard SM-2 and SM-6 weapons, he said, makes them available as offensive weapons, able to reach out and destroy enemy aircraft.

Underlying Clark’s study is an urge to increase the fleet’s lethality and think more offensively.

“The surface fleet of today really can’t do offensive sea control,” he explained. “I want to make this an executable plan as opposed to an aspirational plan. It’s very payload-focused, based on modifications rather than on a brand-new surface combatant.”

Among the moves Clark espouses are quicker development and fielding of laser weapons and electromagnetic rail guns.

“The Navy now has no plan to integrate a laser into a large surface combatant. There is discussion, but nothing definitive,” he said, noting the need for about 1500 kilowatts for power and cooling needs. But the Flight III version of the Arleigh Burke-class destroyer, designed with more electrical power and scheduled to begin construction in 2019, could handle an effective weapon.

“Put a 300 kilowatt to 500 kilowatt laser on the Flight III,” he suggested.

Even before that, the Navy could start building rail guns into ships now, Clark said, pointing to the Navy’s plan to install a prototype 32-megajoule weapon in a temporary setup on a joint high speed vessel (JHSV). Testing is to start in fiscal 2016.

“I’m recommending to do that on several more JHSVs,” Clark said, noting the ships could be forward-deployed with rotating crews and operate with carrier groups as they enter into and operate in an area.

Clark is urging four to five JHSVs be permanently modified with rail guns, altering the design as needed to make installation easier. The armed JHSVs would support carrier strike groups in theater, he said, providing added defense for the carrier.

An even larger, 64-megajoule weapon might be installed on a large Zumwalt-class destroyer, he added.

Clark also is pressing for a shift in weapons acquisition, reducing the size of individual warheads and trading the weight and space for longer range and smaller weapons that can be carried in greater quantities.

“We need to get the most out of the VLS [vertical launch system] batteries” in cruisers and destroyers, he said.

Clark would also create more Aegis Ashore systems, particularly in Japan, to free up cruisers and destroyers for more offensive missions. He pointed to the system now being set up in Romania, using the Aegis combat system and VLS of a cruiser, as a land installation to counter enemy ballistic missiles.

“For the cost of one destroyer, you could buy two to three Aegis Ashore sites,” he noted.

Clark didn’t leave out the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) and the new Small Surface Combatant (SSC) in his drive to increase surface ship lethality.

The Pentagon is expected soon to announce its design choice for an SSC concept, beefing up the modular LCS with more permanently-installed weapons.

“We also need to grow offensive capacity with modifications to LCS based on the SSC,” Clark said. “Right now, LCS not an offensive ship.”

He presented notional offensive surface action groups based on a mix of LCSs and SSCs fitted with different capabilities, particularly in the anti-submarine warfare (ASW) area.

“Put the entire LCS ASW mission package on the SSC,” he urged, along with a 24-cell VLS — noting that designers have said a 16-cell installation is more likely.

Once the SSC is in production, Clark also suggests back fitting earlier LCSs with SSC improvements, particularly VLS.

Clark noted the surface community does not currently have a warfare development group sufficient to develop these new concepts. But, citing the submarine force’s model of such a squadron, he suggested such an initiative would be appropriate from the commander of surface warfare in San Diego.

Overall, Clark sees 2025 as a target date for implementing his suggestions.

“I envision it would take 10 years, including the cultural aspects,” he said.

Clark will publicly present and discuss his report Tuesday morning at the US Capitol Visitor Center.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8524
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline pathology_doc

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 789
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #2 on: November 21, 2014, 06:21:02 am »
Either lasers or more guns. One of the two is a must.

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2935
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #3 on: November 21, 2014, 06:46:23 am »
Let's not panic here.  An attack with 50 inbounds is an incredible threat stream -- basically unprecedented in modern warfare.  You can count the number of opponents that could launch such an attack on one hand, and even those would be hard pressed to do it more than once or twice.  Against such opponents, you won't have a single AEGIS shooter on defense, either.
« Last Edit: November 21, 2014, 06:48:01 am by TomS »

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8524
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #4 on: November 21, 2014, 06:58:43 am »
http://breakingdefense.com/2014/11/47-seconds-from-hell-a-challenge-to-navy-doctrine/?utm_source=Breaking+Defense&utm_campaign=fdd35a0e53-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_4368933672-fdd35a0e53-407814345

This calls for a whole new "Arsenal Ship" approach using the deck space on retired Amphibious Assault Ships and Helicopter Carriers which is measured in acres. Then rather than be limited by the range dictated by the diameter of VLS's you could build space for much larger missiles with ranges in the 1000's of miles like AHW. You could target enemy C2 outside the range of their systems. To me 'not in range' obviously is the safest protection than being targeted at any range.

Also, sailing one of these ships near a 'crisis' (outside the range of any opponents systems) would send a clear and scary message to our adversaries to stand down.
« Last Edit: November 21, 2014, 07:00:20 am by bobbymike »
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11263
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #5 on: November 21, 2014, 08:11:12 am »
Let's not panic here.  An attack with 50 inbounds is an incredible threat stream -- basically unprecedented in modern warfare.  You can count the number of opponents that could launch such an attack on one hand, and even those would be hard pressed to do it more than once or twice.  Against such opponents, you won't have a single AEGIS shooter on defense, either.

It'd be something like this:



Go to 2:05

Looks something like this:




Something else to keep in mind is that a 50 missile raid (assuming an enemy could even get close enough to launch such a thing) would have to run the gauntlet of SM-6, SM-2 Block IV, SM-2 Block III, ESSM, RAM, and Phalanx. 
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Avimimus

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1866
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #6 on: November 21, 2014, 08:23:24 am »
The Kh-35U has a price of about 500,000... still, with only eight missiles per attacker (e.g. fast attack boat or fighter aircraft) it would be hard to get to the 100 missile threshold mentioned without many consecutive attacks.

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2164
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #7 on: November 21, 2014, 05:37:54 pm »
Either lasers or more guns. One of the two is a must.

Both still have non-trivial slew, stabilization and for lasers integration times. Both can only engage a single target at a time and both
pretty much require the host vessel's sensors to facilitate the look-shoot loop. 

One question might be: how densely can you VL pack (nominally) cheaper missiles like AIM-9X Blk III or RAM Blk II?



Offline donnage99

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 953
  • "Robert Gates, is that you??" sublight
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #8 on: November 21, 2014, 07:50:53 pm »

Also, sailing one of these ships near a 'crisis' (outside the range of any opponents systems) would send a clear and scary message to our adversaries to stand down.
If an aircraft carrier can't do that job than this ship won't either. 

Offline ouroboros

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 352
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #9 on: November 21, 2014, 09:42:56 pm »
The asymmetric swarm problem is fundamentally difficult to defend against. Is the general solution a defense swarm in kind? Which leads to thinking like dense packs of short range missiles behaving like a UAV swarm for cooperative defense. While arsenal ship has some attractions, the big expensive all-eggs-in-one-basket approach doesn't seem good.

Taking a page from RPV/UAV swarm operations concepts and the basic arsenal ship idea, why not have many cheaper (nearing disposable) cargo platforms (manned or unmanned ships) lead by a pair of command/sensor ships? Basically something like a pair of AEGIS or AMDR ships, leading a pack of LCS Indepdenece style trimarans with the entire aft deck area consumed by missile container sockets (VLS, plus larger/taller sockets for stuff like AHW). The comand ships effectively offload sensor work from the missile boat USV's to themselves, and the missile boats are, well, missile boats. Taking concepts like netfire, have the missile boat USV's be commandable via satellite so much more remote sensor platforms and command chains can request support.

The ugly problem with USV missile boats is defending themselves from certain threats. Maybe going fast might help, like with a TRISWATH or pentamaran hull, or going below, like a semisubmersible not unlike a cocaine sub. Semisub USV might be attractive from an endurance point of view, but will be slow to transit.

Offline Hobbes

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 617
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #10 on: November 22, 2014, 01:06:31 am »
The point Clark makes isn't that the USN needs more missiles, it's that they need a cheaper way to defend themselves. A Ticonderoga cruiser has (ballpark) $300 million sitting in its magazines. IIRC in the past, the USN has had trouble getting enough funding to fill all the VLS cells in the fleet.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8524
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #11 on: November 22, 2014, 06:08:03 am »

Also, sailing one of these ships near a 'crisis' (outside the range of any opponents systems) would send a clear and scary message to our adversaries to stand down.
If an aircraft carrier can't do that job than this ship won't either. 

For carriers to be in effective range to strike inland targets, in China for example, they are in range of Chin's A2AD strike systems, my hypothetical missile boat would be able to effectively strike outside that envelope. So you are not putting a $12 billion platform at risk.
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline DrRansom

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 512
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #12 on: November 22, 2014, 11:38:14 am »
Strictly speaking, if most of the incoming missiles are going to be sea-skimmers, then semi-active performance beyond the radar horizon is going to be wasted 'most of the time.' In that case, a DDG-51 should be armed with primarily SM-6 and ESSM. SM-6 has long range and can be externally targeted and the ESSM can handle short range low cost weapons.

I like the aggressiveness of this theory, even if it isn't entirely convincing. The USN battlegroup needs a cheap and deep magazine so that it can stay in position for an extended period of time. If carriers have to cover several hundred miles in threat territory before they reach effective strike range (~600nm with F-35C), the escorts need a ton of missiles and need a way of reloading them. A shift towards cheap and smaller missiles may solve the reloading problem.

Maybe the USN could investigate the Sea-Ceptor? This weighs 99kg compared to ESSM 260kg; the lower weight may facilitate reloading and the design may help with close in shots.

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2164
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #13 on: November 22, 2014, 05:09:45 pm »
Because no one will bother to read the actual report :)





and Q&A (slightly hard to hear the audience questions)


Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2164
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #14 on: November 23, 2014, 03:41:56 am »
The point Clark makes isn't that the USN needs more missiles, it's that they need a cheaper way to defend themselves. A Ticonderoga cruiser has (ballpark) $300 million sitting in its magazines. IIRC in the past, the USN has had trouble getting enough funding to fill all the VLS cells in the fleet.

One big takeaway is that SM-6 is an extremely capable missile which can do:

1. Offensive Anti-Air Warfare
2. Offensive Surface Warfare
3. Terminal ABM

Clark points out that the surface group may not be attached to the carrier group and (more generally) won't have the Over-the-Horizon assets  (E-2D) to facilitate the early detection and engagement of sea-skimmers at SM-6's extended range.

*But* the surface group's organic Over-the-Horizon assets (helicopters, BAMS) can facilitate SM-6 shots at cruise missile carriers (surface and airborne) at the SM-6's extended range.

You let ESSM Block II with its very high Pk and dense packability in the VL cells work in tandem with the surface group's organic, line-of-sight decoys/countermeasures on the cruise missiles.

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2164
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #15 on: November 23, 2014, 09:44:04 pm »
Another interesting wrinkle: Japan announces they are buying E-2D.  It struck me that Clark's analysis of SM-6 PUC didn't necessarily take into account
the use of SM-6 in the Aegis Ashore batteries both for air defense and for Terminal ABM.


http://www.defensenews.com/article/20141121/DEFREG03/311210023/Japan-Officially-Selects-Osprey-Global-Hawk-E-2D

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8524
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11263
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #17 on: June 23, 2016, 06:17:59 pm »
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/the-us-navy-can-now-prove-its-new-anti-ship-missile-real-16680

"The SM-6 is larger than the SM-3 interceptor and is designed to destroy closer-in air targets. "

In fact the size is virtually identical.  (Though I'd wager the SM-3 weighs more.)
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2935
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #18 on: June 24, 2016, 06:28:05 am »
Interesting to see the speculation about putting SM-6 in angled tube launchers on ships like LCS.  Possibly the same sort of launcher that LM is showing for LRASM, here:

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,8992.msg284864.html#msg284864

Realistically, however, I really doubt that.  SM-6 is still a rather pricey multi-mode missile and would be somewhat wasted on ships that can't use its air and missile defense capacity to the fullest.  Even with CEC-like Forward Pass capability, why stock the expensive missiles on the less capable ships?

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1850
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #19 on: June 24, 2016, 07:14:27 am »
Unless, I’m looking at the data wrong, the SM6 is actually quite cost-effective weapon (of course not for the LCS)  relatively speaking (compared to other interceptor programs like the PAC-3 MSE, THAAD etc) given its long range Air defense capability, as well as demonstrated ABM and now surface attack capability. I know that they all have different capability and roles but it seems the USN has done well to keep costs low by leveraging the SM3 and AMRAAM programs. The more I look into it, the more I wish the US Army leverage components/elements of the SM6 to develop a long range air-defense interceptor to fit the THAAD launcher.



 

http://www.dod.mil/pubs/foi/Reading_Room/Selected_Acquisition_Reports/15-F-0540_SM-6_SAR_Dec_2014.PDF

That's a comparable unit cost to the PAC3MSE over its projected 1100 procurement run.
« Last Edit: June 24, 2016, 07:19:55 am by bring_it_on »
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2935
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #20 on: June 24, 2016, 07:37:46 am »
I wasn't comparing to other interceptors, but to other anti-ship weapons.  SM-6 is around $4-5 million each, while LRASM is supposed to be around $2 million and weapons like NSM down under $1 million.

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1850
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #21 on: June 24, 2016, 07:44:45 am »
For the LCS, LRASM, NSM or the Latest block upgrade for the Harpoon (ER) will still be better options. Smaller, and relatively easier to upgrade. As you mentioned, its pointless to put an SM6 on there just for offensive AshM role just as Raytheon is partnered with Kongsberg and has the NSM that Is quite competitive given the lineup.
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11263
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #22 on: June 24, 2016, 09:59:07 am »
Interesting to see the speculation about putting SM-6 in angled tube launchers on ships like LCS.  Possibly the same sort of launcher that LM is showing for LRASM, here:

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,8992.msg284864.html#msg284864

Realistically, however, I really doubt that.  SM-6 is still a rather pricey multi-mode missile and would be somewhat wasted on ships that can't use its air and missile defense capacity to the fullest.  Even with CEC-like Forward Pass capability, why stock the expensive missiles on the less capable ships?

IMO it would be insane to use SM-6 in a dedicated antiship mode.  Now if you're trying to increase the number of launch points you can "feed" the network from to go after air and surface targets that is another matter. 
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2164
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #23 on: June 24, 2016, 10:58:12 am »
Interesting to see the speculation about putting SM-6 in angled tube launchers on ships like LCS.  Possibly the same sort of launcher that LM is showing for LRASM, here:

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,8992.msg284864.html#msg284864

Realistically, however, I really doubt that.  SM-6 is still a rather pricey multi-mode missile and would be somewhat wasted on ships that can't use its air and missile defense capacity to the fullest.  Even with CEC-like Forward Pass capability, why stock the expensive missiles on the less capable ships?

And there's the minor issue of SM-6 being out-of-band with respect to the LCS radars.
« Last Edit: June 24, 2016, 11:01:32 am by marauder2048 »

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2935
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #24 on: June 24, 2016, 12:11:10 pm »
True, but isn't the point of the Distributed Lethality construct that missiles like SM-6 can be launched from platforms that can't guide them, with guidance provided from offboard platforms via NIFC-CA? 

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2164
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #25 on: June 24, 2016, 02:44:24 pm »
True, but isn't the point of the Distributed Lethality construct that missiles like SM-6 can be launched from platforms that can't guide them, with guidance provided from offboard platforms via NIFC-CA?

That's true but everything gets better (particularly in a GPS degraded/denied environment) if the launching platform has, at the very least, an uplink.

The figure is from Bezick, et al. "Inertial Navigation for Guided Missile Systems."
The bio in the paper states that "Mr. Bezick has developed the IFA Kalman filter algorithm that has been implemented in SM-6."
« Last Edit: June 24, 2016, 03:09:22 pm by marauder2048 »

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1850
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #26 on: June 24, 2016, 02:58:29 pm »
In the desegregated concept you would still like to have the minimum capability required to fulfill the mission, with collective capability being significantly better than the sum of the parts. I don't think you would want to to make it a mule without being able to at least use some of the features organically, especially not when you have the Harpoon-ER, LRASM, or the NSM as an option.
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline jsport

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1182
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #27 on: June 25, 2016, 09:28:38 am »
In the desegregated concept you would still like to have the minimum capability required to fulfill the mission, with collective capability being significantly better than the sum of the parts. I don't think you would want to to make it a mule without being able to at least use some of the features organically, especially not when you have the Harpoon-ER, LRASM, or the NSM as an option.
Absolutely, resources are too scant for any ship to only bringing a knife to a gun fight/ too light to fight too dumb to run. Collective capability is great but individual survivablity is essential. A stout and versatile mule.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8524
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8524
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8524
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8524
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Ian33

  • Guest
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #32 on: October 23, 2016, 07:41:01 pm »
RAND Report of interest

http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR1359.html?adbsc=social_20161023_1058801&adbid=790319404017823744&adbpl=tw&adbpr=22545453

My brother in law was a senior bod inside the submarine service for many years. One major moan point was the lack of punch the surface ships had for a sustained campaign against a peer like state. The Admiralty just said "subs do this, race here, do that..." until one day, a retiring chap looked across and said "Except you sank us the moment you took Nimrod out the skies."

Didn't go down well. The west is in for a very rude shock the moment it gets into a proper fight. 

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8524
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8524
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #34 on: January 11, 2017, 11:13:00 pm »


SM-6 from Navy Surface Warfare Conference
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline jsport

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1182
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #35 on: January 17, 2017, 04:17:09 pm »
RAND Report of interest

http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR1359.html?adbsc=social_20161023_1058801&adbid=790319404017823744&adbpl=tw&adbpr=22545453

My brother in law was a senior bod inside the submarine service for many years. One major moan point was the lack of punch the surface ships had for a sustained campaign against a peer like state. The Admiralty just said "subs do this, race here, do that..." until one day, a retiring chap looked across and said "Except you sank us the moment you took Nimrod out the skies."

Didn't go down well. The west is in for a very rude shock the moment it gets into a proper fight.
What he said.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8524
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8524
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8524
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2164
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #39 on: January 25, 2017, 06:06:27 pm »
https://insidedefense.com/daily-news/long-range-anti-ship-missile-program-cleared-initial-production

Long-Range Anti-Ship Missile program cleared for initial production
January 25, 2017
Justin Doubleday

The accelerated Long Range Anti-Ship Missile program has cleared its production readiness review, according to a Lockheed Martin official.
The review will allow the Navy to award a contract to Lockheed for initial production of the missile.
The Navy is procuring 10 missiles in fiscal year 2017, while the Air Force is buying 20, according to FY-17 budget justification documents.
 "They've had their production readiness review and they've been given approval for production," Scott Calloway, Lockheed's program director for advanced...

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8524
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8524
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline NeilChapman

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 866
  • Interested 3rd party
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #42 on: February 09, 2017, 04:50:00 pm »
http://csbaonline.org/research/publications/restoring-american-seapower-a-new-fleet-architecture-for-the-united-states-

http://csbaonline.org/uploads/documents/CSBA6224-Fleet_Architecture_Study_WEB.pdf

I like the suggestion of qty 10 CVL to augment 12 CVN's.  LHA's are great but would like to see arresting gear and catapult added to broaden their utility - something about the size of British QE-class.

Navy really needs to either expand the public yards or learn how to work efficiently with civilian yards.  If you can't fix what you've got...




« Last Edit: February 09, 2017, 04:53:04 pm by NeilChapman »

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2164
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #43 on: February 10, 2017, 02:34:43 pm »
One of the arguments is that EMALS reduces the wind-over-deck requirements to the point where
a conventionally powered carrier can conduct launch operations without adversely impacting its fuel
stores.

Offline NeilChapman

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 866
  • Interested 3rd party
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #44 on: February 10, 2017, 02:55:50 pm »
One of the arguments is that EMALS reduces the wind-over-deck requirements to the point where
a conventionally powered carrier can conduct launch operations without adversely impacting its fuel
stores.

Ahhh.  Didn't know that.  Would it be true that a CVL wouldn't need to be maintained in a public yard?

Document also calls for new frigate and patrol craft. 
"
In the proposed architecture, the LCS/FF program would be truncated as soon as the design of a new FFG is ready to build. This would ideally be in FY19, but may be FY20 or FY21. The 4000- to 5000-ton FFG would be designed with the endurance to accompany the Maneuver Force or for convoy escort; an active and passive EW suite; an ASW suite including a VDS sonar and passive towed array; and a 16- to 32-cell VLS magazine with ESSM for medium- range area air defense, long-range surface-to-surface missiles, and a stando  ASW weapon capable of quickly putting a submarine on the defensive more than 50 nm away.
"

Sounds a lot like the Legend-class National Security Cutter-based Patrol Frigate 4921 concept.

http://www.defensemedianetwork.com/stories/patrol-frigate-concepts-from-huntington-ingalls-industries-gain-traction-internationally/





Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8524
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #45 on: February 10, 2017, 04:56:24 pm »
http://breakingdefense.com/2017/02/414-ships-no-lcs-mitres-alternative-navy/

Quote
The Navy needs a vastly larger fleet — 414 warships — to win a great-power war, well above today’s 274 ships or even the Navy’s unfunded plan for 355, the think-tank MITRE calculates in a congressionally-chartered study. That ideal fleet would include:

    14 aircraft carriers instead of today’s 11;
    160 cruisers and destroyers instead of 84;
    72 attack submarines instead of today’s 52;

New classes ranging from a missile-packed “magazine ship,” to diesel-powered submarines, to a heavy frigate to replace the Littoral Combat Ship, which would be cancelled.
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline NeilChapman

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 866
  • Interested 3rd party
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #46 on: February 10, 2017, 10:38:35 pm »


LCS is ~USD400M without a mission module?  Latest funded DDG (2016) was USD644M without government furnished systems. 

As LX(R) is a modified San Antonio-class, why not consider an AWS-less variant of DDG-51 as FFG's or Destroyer Escorts?  It's a bit bigger than what they want as a frigate but you could pack it with ordinance.  And it has a 5" gun for potential HVP use in future.  It's also tough as a pine knot and has a hot production line at two shipyards.

Is it possible to strip out the AWS out and use it as a FFG/DE?



Offline NeilChapman

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 866
  • Interested 3rd party
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #47 on: February 11, 2017, 06:46:50 am »

Nice thread on proposed frigate 4921 referenced a couple of posts back.

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,10964.0.html








Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2164
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #48 on: February 11, 2017, 02:00:39 pm »
I found this claim from the CSBA report curious

"To minimize the UCAV’s radar signature, it would likely have a “flying wing”
structure like a B-2 bomber or the TERN UAV (see Figure 46) that lacks traditional wings
or a tail. This design reduces the number of surfaces that can reflect radar energy, but also
reduces the aircraft’s lift and, in turn, payload or endurance. Therefore, the UCAV would not
have the very long endurance and high payload capacity desired for refueling, logistics, or
surveillance missions."



Offline NeilChapman

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 866
  • Interested 3rd party
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #49 on: February 11, 2017, 05:24:31 pm »
I found this claim from the CSBA report curious

"To minimize the UCAV’s radar signature, it would likely have a “flying wing”
structure like a B-2 bomber or the TERN UAV (see Figure 46) that lacks traditional wings
or a tail. This design reduces the number of surfaces that can reflect radar energy, but also
reduces the aircraft’s lift and, in turn, payload or endurance. Therefore, the UCAV would not
have the very long endurance and high payload capacity desired for refueling, logistics, or
surveillance missions."


I think they mucked this up.  The paragraph has a footnote that is the article below.

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/are-us-fighter-jets-about-become-obsolete-12612

Which in turn references another CSBA report.

http://csbaonline.org/uploads/documents/Air-to-Air-Report-.pdf

which states in the abstract...

"
This transformation may be steadily reducing the utility of some attributes traditionally associated with fighter aircraft (e.g., extreme speed and maneuverability) while increasing the value of attributes not usually associated with fighter aircraft (e.g., sensor and weapon payload as well as range).
"

Which is somewhat different than paragraph you referenced.





Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8524
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2164
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #51 on: February 12, 2017, 03:10:05 pm »

And it has a 5" gun for potential HVP use in future. 

From Hyper Velocity Projectile Industry Day Notice:


- HVP BLK 0 will provide Initial Operational Capability (IOC) for the 5" MK 45 MOD 4 Gun Mount emplaced on Aegis Weapon System equipped DDG-51 Class Destroyers and CG-47 Class Cruisers. 

- The US Navy is currently planning for an IOC during 4QFY23 for HVP BLK 0.

- HVP BLK 0 will provide a prime weapon foundation for future HVP capability upgrades as new platform sensors or gun launch systems are fielded by the US Navy.

- Building on previous HVP risk reduction efforts, the E&MD prime weapons vendor will define the HVP BLK 0 tactical architecture in order to meet the HVP BLK 0 Performance Specification, Interface Control Documentation, and Aegis Weapon System integration requirements. 

-  The US Navy is planning for contractor development of the HVP BLK 0 projectile and propelling charge as an integrated system.

- The US Navy plans to provide an HVP BLK 0 life-cycle container as GFE.

- The US Navy plans to utilize the MK 160 Fire Control System and conduct MK 45 Gun Mount Ordnance Alterations (ORDALTs) to integrate HVP BLK 0.  An Interface Control Working Group (led by the US Navy) will be developed as part of the HVP BLK 0 E&MD phase in order to arrive at a final HVP BLK 0 to MK 45 Gun Mount Interface Control Document.

- The US Navy is currently conducting trade studies and analysis to finalize HVP BLK 0 requirements generation.  The final HVP BLK 0 performance requirements will be detailed in a performance specification which will be released at a later date.

- The HVP BLK 0 will provide a maximum range of 26 nautical miles (nmi) or greater.

Offline NeilChapman

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 866
  • Interested 3rd party
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #52 on: February 12, 2017, 08:12:44 pm »

And it has a 5" gun for potential HVP use in future. 

From Hyper Velocity Projectile Industry Day Notice:


- HVP BLK 0 will provide Initial Operational Capability (IOC) for the 5" MK 45 MOD 4 Gun Mount emplaced on Aegis Weapon System equipped DDG-51 Class Destroyers and CG-47 Class Cruisers. 

- The US Navy is currently planning for an IOC during 4QFY23 for HVP BLK 0.

- HVP BLK 0 will provide a prime weapon foundation for future HVP capability upgrades as new platform sensors or gun launch systems are fielded by the US Navy.

- Building on previous HVP risk reduction efforts, the E&MD prime weapons vendor will define the HVP BLK 0 tactical architecture in order to meet the HVP BLK 0 Performance Specification, Interface Control Documentation, and Aegis Weapon System integration requirements. 

-  The US Navy is planning for contractor development of the HVP BLK 0 projectile and propelling charge as an integrated system.

- The US Navy plans to provide an HVP BLK 0 life-cycle container as GFE.

- The US Navy plans to utilize the MK 160 Fire Control System and conduct MK 45 Gun Mount Ordnance Alterations (ORDALTs) to integrate HVP BLK 0.  An Interface Control Working Group (led by the US Navy) will be developed as part of the HVP BLK 0 E&MD phase in order to arrive at a final HVP BLK 0 to MK 45 Gun Mount Interface Control Document.

- The US Navy is currently conducting trade studies and analysis to finalize HVP BLK 0 requirements generation.  The final HVP BLK 0 performance requirements will be detailed in a performance specification which will be released at a later date.

- The HVP BLK 0 will provide a maximum range of 26 nautical miles (nmi) or greater.

I've been looking to see if the Navy ever considered an AWS-less DDG-51 variant as an FFG.  Found some others that have opined a similar solution.

http://nextnavy.com/time-to-consider-a-low-end-littoral-operations-variant-ddg-51/

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,14608.15.html   gibbs&cox 3500t frigate design discussion




Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8524
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #53 on: February 16, 2017, 03:48:40 am »
From Inside Defense:

Navy expects to finalize initial requirement for future surface combatant by July

February 15, 2017

The Navy has determined three types of vessels it would develop as part of future surface combatant programs, and the service expects to complete the initial capabilities document for the family of vessels by July, according to officials.

The Navy finished a capabilities based assessment last October, and the study concluded that the future surface combatant would come in a family of three types of ship -- large surface combatants, small surface combatants and unmanned integrated capabilities, according to Capt. Chris Sweeney, deputy for Aegis BMD and destroyer programs at the Navy's surface warfare directorate (N96).

The service is planning to conduct a war game examining the notional ships within the context of future fleet architectures this June, Sweeney said during a Feb. 15 panel discussion at an American Society of Naval Engineers conference in Arlington, VA.

The Navy then plans to finalize the future surface combatant initial capabilities document this July, according to Sweeney. In the Defense Department's acquisition process, the ICD documents the need for a system or set of systems to fill a specific capability gap.

Sweeney said the Navy would then conduct an analysis of alternatives for each of the three groups before making a material development decision in early 2018.

A key part of informing requirements and development of the future surface combatant platforms will be a developmental surface squadron the Navy plans to establish within the next few years, Sweeney told reporters following the panel discussion. The squadron will be based in San Diego, CA, and could involve a range of available ships and capabilities such as unmanned vessels, the Littoral Combat Ship and the Zumwalt-class guided missile destroyer.

"We really think the developmental squadron piece, it's key for us as we go forward with the future surface combatant," Sweeney said. He added that the squadron isn't funded yet and will likely be included in the Navy's five-year spending plan for fiscal year 2019.

The future surface combatants are expected to first replace the Navy's Ticonderoga-class cruisers and Arleigh Burke-class destroyers, both of which will begin retiring in the mid-2030s. The program will also eventually replace the Navy's Littoral Combat Ships.

Vice Adm. Thomas Moore, the head of Naval Sea Systems command, pointed to the time line for retiring cruisers and destroyers as the reason to move forward on the future surface combatant.

"We've got a time frame here and we've got to work our way through systematically what we're going to do," Moore told reporters following a separate presentation at the Feb. 15 conference. "We're going to have to make some decisions here before 2020 about what this thing is going to look like."

The three-star also emphasized the importance of taking into account past lessons learned about pursuing too many new technologies in newly designed ships.

NAVSEA will have a hand in helping the chief of naval operations' office shape the future surface combatant requirements through its engineering directorate. Steve Wynn, future ship and force architecture director for the NAVSEA engineering directorate, said his office is "advising" OPNAV on different aspects of the requirements.

Wynn highlighted how unmanned platforms will play a much greater role in the future surface force.

"We're looking at a much greater emphasis on unmanned platforms," he said during the Feb. 15 panel discussion.

Medium-sized unmanned surface vessels (USV) are considered viable unmanned integrated capabilities under the envisioned future surface combatant capabilities, according to Jonathan Rucker, program manager for unmanned maritime systems at the program executive office for LCS.

The Office of Naval Research is expected to gain ownership of a medium-sized USV later this year. The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency developed the "Sea Hunter" as a medium-sized USV capable of autonomously tracking submarines. The technology will officially transition into ONR's portfolio this April, Rucker said, and the Navy will further develop concepts of operation for the medium-sized USV.

But the unmanned integrated capabilities portion of the future surface combatant program is still open-ended, and it could also include aerial and undersea platforms, not just surface vessels, according to Sweeney.

"We're not at the platform level yet, but we have a lot to learn in the unmanned space, and we want to bring this all together in integrated combat systems," he said.
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2935
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #54 on: February 16, 2017, 09:26:58 am »

I've been looking to see if the Navy ever considered an AWS-less DDG-51 variant as an FFG.  Found some others that have opined a similar solution.

http://nextnavy.com/time-to-consider-a-low-end-littoral-operations-variant-ddg-51/

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,14608.15.html   gibbs&cox 3500t frigate design discussion

Somewhere I have Navy drawings of a non-AEGIS DDG-51 design, but it was early on and I think based around New Threat Upgrade.  Basically, it was a DDG for end users who would not be allowed to buy AEGIS when it was still tightly controlled.

Problem is that it's a very expensive ship to build and run, even not including SPY-1.  Four large turbines, 90+ VLS tubes, crew of 300+, roughly 9000 tons full load. (That Next navy article is pretty tricky, citing light ship displacement for the DDG with either standard of full load for the other designs).


Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8524
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline NeilChapman

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 866
  • Interested 3rd party
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #56 on: February 16, 2017, 10:09:47 pm »

I've been looking to see if the Navy ever considered an AWS-less DDG-51 variant as an FFG.  Found some others that have opined a similar solution.

http://nextnavy.com/time-to-consider-a-low-end-littoral-operations-variant-ddg-51/

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,14608.15.html   gibbs&cox 3500t frigate design discussion

Somewhere I have Navy drawings of a non-AEGIS DDG-51 design, but it was early on and I think based around New Threat Upgrade.  Basically, it was a DDG for end users who would not be allowed to buy AEGIS when it was still tightly controlled.

Problem is that it's a very expensive ship to build and run, even not including SPY-1.  Four large turbines, 90+ VLS tubes, crew of 300+, roughly 9000 tons full load. (That Next navy article is pretty tricky, citing light ship displacement for the DDG with either standard of full load for the other designs).

Man, I hope you find the drawing.  Cool.  I'm interested in the structures.

I get it.  It's "seemingly" expensive to build and run.

- but -

Not really that expensive to build.  ~650M vs ~400M for LCS.  But that acquisition cost difference is deceiving especially considering the DDG is built to Survivability Level II and LCS is SL1.  DDG-51 Service Life is 40 years whereas LCS Service Life is ~25 years.  So that's a 250k annual difference amortized over the life of the ship.  Also, can't make enough of the fact that there exists two hot production lines.  With inflation, the cost has actually dropped over the last few years.  Increase production from ~2 to 4 per year.  That would keep pace w/~140 combined DDG & FFG's w/a 40yr lifespan.

Expensive to run?  LCS has too few sailors, everyone agrees.  Not a good comparison. Can more automation be designed into the ddg-51 frame?   More than likely.  Make it a focus of Flight IV to reduce manning by 15%.  No need to get crazy, just figure it out using the 80% rule.  Four turbines, yes.  It can run with the battle group.  Never know when you might need to tow a LHA as part of an ARG.  Perhaps a hybrid-electric drive?  Meh.  Oil is cheap today.

--

It doesn't make sense to add in the cost of weapons systems in the decision making process.  You add in what you need for a Frigate or Destroyer Escort mission.  It's easier to add weapons when you have more space.

--

Room to accommodate both Helo and MALE UAV operations.  Not so w/LCS.

LCS was a "post cold-war" idea but the mission has now fundamentally changed.  Too expensive to be a patrol craft and too emasculated to be a proper FFG/DE.  Time to move on.

Attached a great picture of what I would consider a great beginning to a future ARG.  A CVL, some cruisers, supply ships and an "assault support" ship out front.   ;)







Offline Moose

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 914
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #57 on: February 16, 2017, 11:21:45 pm »
I'd be careful with the 650 million figure, Neil, it is doing you a disservice.


Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2935
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #59 on: February 21, 2017, 04:58:48 am »
I'd be careful with the 650 million figure, Neil, it is doing you a disservice.

Well...I did add the tilde.   ;) 

http://www.upi.com/Defense-News/2016/04/04/Navy-fully-funds-new-Arleigh-Burke-class-destroyer/5861459795804/

https://www.law360.com/articles/778704/bath-iron-works-huntington-ingalls-nab-1-2b-for-navy-ships

http://newsroom.huntingtoningalls.com/releases/ingalls-shipbuilding-awarded-618-million-contract-to-build-ddg-123-3433700

Shall we make it 673M?

Those are simply shipbuilding costs, not including any Government Furnished Equipment, which includes all of the combat systems, the engines, the reduction gearing, etc.  Total procurement cost for a DDG is at least  twice that, and only a couple hundred million is specific to AEGIS. 

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8524
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline NeilChapman

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 866
  • Interested 3rd party
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #61 on: February 21, 2017, 03:58:10 pm »
I'd be careful with the 650 million figure, Neil, it is doing you a disservice.

Well...I did add the tilde.   ;) 

http://www.upi.com/Defense-News/2016/04/04/Navy-fully-funds-new-Arleigh-Burke-class-destroyer/5861459795804/

https://www.law360.com/articles/778704/bath-iron-works-huntington-ingalls-nab-1-2b-for-navy-ships

http://newsroom.huntingtoningalls.com/releases/ingalls-shipbuilding-awarded-618-million-contract-to-build-ddg-123-3433700

Shall we make it 673M?

Those are simply shipbuilding costs, not including any Government Furnished Equipment, which includes all of the combat systems, the engines, the reduction gearing, etc.  Total procurement cost for a DDG is at least  twice that, and only a couple hundred million is specific to AEGIS.

I get it.  That's the point.  Take out the GFE and the shipbuilding costs between a (Survivability Level II) AB-class is not that significantly different than an LCS (Survivability Level I) over the expected life of the ship (40y vs 25y).

Use the AB-Class as the starting point for a new FFG/DE.  Then decide what the GFE will be for that particular requirement.  Much as the SA-Class was used as the starting point for the new LX(R).

Using the AB-Class and building more - from 2 per year today to 4 per year - split between AB and the FFG/DE variant will reduce cost and provide a more lethal power projection.  Also makes training, support and maintenance less complicated - and less expensive.

Is there any insight into the costs of the engines?  If they're not included in AB then is that cost not included for the LCS?


« Last Edit: February 21, 2017, 04:00:20 pm by NeilChapman »

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2935
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #62 on: February 22, 2017, 03:09:50 am »
Here is a cost breakdown for the DDG-51

http://www.fi-aeroweb.com/Defense/Budget-Data/FY2016/DDG-51-NAVY-SHIP-FY2016.pdf

I don't actually see the engines separately here.  They may be in the main construction line  after all.  But you can see that Aegis only contributes about $130 million out of a final per-ship price of about $1.4 billion. 

Here is the equivalent document for LCS

http://www.fi-aeroweb.com/Defense/Budget-Data/FY2016/LCS-NAVY-SHIP-FY2016.pdf

Interestingly, there are fewer separate program line items for the combat system and armament.  Some of that is bought separately but here is also more rolled into the main construction contracts, it appears. 

Offline NeilChapman

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 866
  • Interested 3rd party
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #63 on: February 23, 2017, 04:40:35 am »
Here is a cost breakdown for the DDG-51

http://www.fi-aeroweb.com/Defense/Budget-Data/FY2016/DDG-51-NAVY-SHIP-FY2016.pdf

I don't actually see the engines separately here.  They may be in the main construction line  after all.  But you can see that Aegis only contributes about $130 million out of a final per-ship price of about $1.4 billion. 

Here is the equivalent document for LCS

http://www.fi-aeroweb.com/Defense/Budget-Data/FY2016/LCS-NAVY-SHIP-FY2016.pdf

Interestingly, there are fewer separate program line items for the combat system and armament.  Some of that is bought separately but here is also more rolled into the main construction contracts, it appears.

Thanks Tom!  I'm just getting into these documents.  I'm not following $130M for AWS?  I'm looking at page 8-8 of the first document.  It reads AWS was ~$253M in '14 and  $627M (Qty2) in '16. 

N


Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8524
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2935
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #65 on: February 23, 2017, 07:00:49 am »
Here is a cost breakdown for the DDG-51

http://www.fi-aeroweb.com/Defense/Budget-Data/FY2016/DDG-51-NAVY-SHIP-FY2016.pdf

I don't actually see the engines separately here.  They may be in the main construction line  after all.  But you can see that Aegis only contributes about $130 million out of a final per-ship price of about $1.4 billion. 

Here is the equivalent document for LCS

http://www.fi-aeroweb.com/Defense/Budget-Data/FY2016/LCS-NAVY-SHIP-FY2016.pdf

Interestingly, there are fewer separate program line items for the combat system and armament.  Some of that is bought separately but here is also more rolled into the main construction contracts, it appears.

Thanks Tom!  I'm just getting into these documents.  I'm not following $130M for AWS?  I'm looking at page 8-8 of the first document.  It reads AWS was ~$253M in '14 and  $627M (Qty2) in '16. 

N

Look at the line items on 8-15.  The $131 million figure is the "major hardware" line.  You could add the System Integration line, which would be about $30-40 mil per ship. A lot of the rest is basically constant year-to year regardless of how many ship sets they buy, so that's really AEGIS program overhead, not specific to any single ship.   Spares should be applied across the fleet, not just for the ship currently being built. 

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8524
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #66 on: February 24, 2017, 05:29:12 pm »
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline NeilChapman

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 866
  • Interested 3rd party
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #67 on: February 24, 2017, 07:32:09 pm »
Here is a cost breakdown for the DDG-51

http://www.fi-aeroweb.com/Defense/Budget-Data/FY2016/DDG-51-NAVY-SHIP-FY2016.pdf

I don't actually see the engines separately here.  They may be in the main construction line  after all.  But you can see that Aegis only contributes about $130 million out of a final per-ship price of about $1.4 billion. 

Here is the equivalent document for LCS

http://www.fi-aeroweb.com/Defense/Budget-Data/FY2016/LCS-NAVY-SHIP-FY2016.pdf

Interestingly, there are fewer separate program line items for the combat system and armament.  Some of that is bought separately but here is also more rolled into the main construction contracts, it appears.

Thanks Tom!  I'm just getting into these documents.  I'm not following $130M for AWS?  I'm looking at page 8-8 of the first document.  It reads AWS was ~$253M in '14 and  $627M (Qty2) in '16. 

N

Look at the line items on 8-15.  The $131 million figure is the "major hardware" line.  You could add the System Integration line, which would be about $30-40 mil per ship. A lot of the rest is basically constant year-to year regardless of how many ship sets they buy, so that's really AEGIS program overhead, not specific to any single ship.   Spares should be applied across the fleet, not just for the ship currently being built.

But it is the $'s spent in support of the AWS on that ship, agreed?


Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2935
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #68 on: February 25, 2017, 03:06:57 am »
No, I wouldn't.  The spares and other overhead lines would be paid even if there was no new Aegis ship being built in a  given year.  Those costs aren't tied to the ship.

Offline NeilChapman

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 866
  • Interested 3rd party
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #69 on: February 25, 2017, 07:10:21 am »
No, I wouldn't.  The spares and other overhead lines would be paid even if there was no new Aegis ship being built in a  given year.  Those costs aren't tied to the ship.

The "spares and other overhead lines" required for DDG-51 program would be purchased by the DDG-51 program, whether or not a ship was built in a given year.  I get that. But if you're building a FFG/DE variant (for our discussion I'll refer to it as FFG/DE-51) that would be a separate and distinct program.  A separate program even though it's based on the same "hull"

The FFG/DE-51 would not include AWS.  Thus the program would not include "spares and other overhead lines" for items not part of the program, no?  In this case, "spares and other overhead lines" in support of AWS.





Offline NeilChapman

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 866
  • Interested 3rd party
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #70 on: February 25, 2017, 08:51:34 am »
I've pulled out some number from the links TomS provided.  Thanks T!

The numbers are from 2013 and 2015.  The effort was to look at ships from the same budget year.  Also to look at effects of multiple purchase and, perhaps, maturity of program.

Showed costs w/o Ordnance and w/o Ordnance and Electronics to try and get at basic ship costs.

Also divided costs over the expected life of the ship (LCS=25, DDG=40).


--
Couple of questions for those "in the know".

1.  What is included in the "PLAN COSTS"?   
2.  And how do "PLAN COSTS" increase from $22M to $34M in two years?  These are all Flight IIA ships.  I don't get it.
3.  How is it that a ship you've built 40 times consistently needs ~$20M in change orders?
4.  How do HM&E costs, again, on ships built 40 times, increase from $67M to ~$80M in two years?





Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8524
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #71 on: February 26, 2017, 12:18:19 am »
https://www.defensetech.org/2017/02/25/navy-wants-money-new-technology/?ESRC=deftech.sm

http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2017/02/future-us-navy-plans-are-all-about.html

Quote
MITRE's future navy plan has a concept called the "Magazine Ship." The MGX would carry up to 4 railguns, 1,000 missile silos, or 96 Pershing-III intermediate range ballistic—or some mix.

Three new navy plans all are focused on more ships, with more missiles, more drones and more planes. Lethality is increased with more missiles, more planes and more drones. The total number of weapons are increased and they are put on more ships.

Adding three small carriers would double the number of planes and drones in a carrier group.

I can get on board  :D

https://news.usni.org/2017/02/14/trio-of-studies-look-to-the-u-s-navy-fleet-of-2030
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline NeilChapman

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 866
  • Interested 3rd party
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #72 on: February 26, 2017, 03:56:52 pm »
I asked the questions below and have found some information to begin understanding them.

The answers are from
http://www.navsea.navy.mil/Portals/103/Documents/05C/2005_NAVSEA_CEH_Final.pdf




--
Couple of questions for those "in the know".

1.  What is included in the "PLAN COSTS"?   
"The Construction Plans category is the second major shipbuilding segment of the cost estimate. This category includes the nonrecurring costs related to detailed construction plans and other associated engineering tasks for lead ships. Planning yard, lead yard, and follow yard costs for ship classes may also be accounted for in this category or in the Basic Construction category."

Well, this isn't a lead ship by any stretch.  Seems like this is a convenient line item to insert ship building costs w/o having them shown on the Basic Construction line item.   

2.  And how do "PLAN COSTS" increase from $22M to $34M in two years?  These are all Flight IIA ships.  I don't get it.

Still don't get it.  It would be nice to have some detail.  They built three ships in 2013 and two in 2015.  Not sure how you incur $12M of additional yard costs w/one less ship.

3.  How is it that a ship you've built 40 times consistently needs ~$20M in change orders?

Looks like they take a percentage for "budgeting" purposes.  Seems pretty high for an established ship design.

I'd rather see a project risk % added to the program but seems like that's what this is being used for.

4.  How do HM&E costs, again, on ships built 40 times, increase from $67M to ~$80M in two years?

I get the fact that there are cost savings for multiple purchases but it seems like a very significant increase for building one less ship.

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2164
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #73 on: February 26, 2017, 09:06:04 pm »
MITRE's future navy plan has a concept called the "Magazine Ship." The MGX would carry up to 4 railguns, 1,000 missile silos, or 96 Pershing-III intermediate range ballistic—or some mix.

Might want to look at conventionally powered SSGNs at that point instead of
putting several billion dollars of high-end munitions on a converted fleet oiler that's
got very limited self-defense capability (SeaRAM + Nulka).

MITRE study attached.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8524
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2164
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #75 on: March 05, 2017, 10:04:43 pm »



Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1850
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #76 on: March 08, 2017, 01:38:10 pm »
I would love if someone asked Bryan Clark about which $500,000 short ballistic Missile Defense interceptor he keeps referring to.
« Last Edit: March 08, 2017, 02:11:06 pm by bring_it_on »
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2164
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #77 on: March 08, 2017, 04:53:23 pm »
I would love if someone asked Bryan Clark about which $500,000 short ballistic Missile Defense interceptor he keeps referring to.

At a guess, ESSM Block II. It's supposed to have some capability against ASBMs.

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1850
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #78 on: March 08, 2017, 05:09:55 pm »
I would love if someone asked Bryan Clark about which $500,000 short ballistic Missile Defense interceptor he keeps referring to.

At a guess, ESSM Block II. It's supposed to have some capability against ASBMs.

But even the Block I doesn't cost half a million :) Also, he keeps saying lets swap in these $500,000 missiles for Sm2's or Sm6s. Not sure of the SM2 but the Sm6 has intercepted MRBM's, precisely in the DF-21 range class. Although one could hypothetically make dual or quad packed shorter ranged missile to defeat such a threat it is unlikely to cost in the half a million $ class. You'd need something like an MSE++.
« Last Edit: March 08, 2017, 05:27:01 pm by bring_it_on »
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11263
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #79 on: March 08, 2017, 05:38:43 pm »
Not sure of the SM2 but the Sm6 has intercepted MRBM's, precisely in the DF-21 range class.

When?  And did it have a maneuvering RV?

Although one could hypothetically make dual or quad packed shorter ranged missile to defeat such a threat it is unlikely to cost in the half a million $ class. You'd need something like an MSE++.
[/quote]

Even the basic PAC-3 was intercepting Pershing II maneuvering RVs over a decade ago.  I'd put MSEs ability to hit such difficult targets WELL above SM-6s. 
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2164
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #80 on: March 08, 2017, 06:13:35 pm »
But even the Block I doesn't cost half a million :)

Assuming it's possible, the per-unit  cost of reworking ESSM Block I to Block II standard
could be under half a million.

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1850
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #81 on: March 09, 2017, 02:20:21 am »


When?



Quote
For the navy, the ability to expand missile functionality without the need to re-design and recertify hardware is a game changer. "If I can make software-only modifications to those missiles I now have the ability to pace the threat without having to go back in and change hardware and complete a development effort," said Capt Ladner. "It's like a Windows 10 upgrade … the software is updated and now I get a new capability rolled out. What I [need to] do is to be nimble in how I make those software upgrades."

SBT Increment 1 is the first example of a software upgrade that is endowing additional capability, introducing functionality to enable the SM-6 Dual I missile to defeat short-range ballistic missile threats inside the atmosphere in their terminal phase. The SM-6 Dual I was entered in the MDA's Operational Capability Baseline in December 2015 and delivered to the fleet.

Having completed a first SM-6 Dual 1 flight test in July 2015 - intercepting and destroying a short-range ballistic missile target in its final seconds of flight - the MDA and the USN conducted a second test, designated Flight Test Standard Missile-27 (FTM-27), off the coast of Hawaii in December 2016. On this occasion the destroyer John Paul Jones  , configured to Aegis Baseline 9.C1, fired a salvo of two SM-6 Dual I missiles against a medium-range ballistic missile (MRBM) target fired from PMRF.

Lockheed Martin's Targets and Countermeasures team designed, built and launched the MRBM target vehicle. Although it has been widely reported that the target was flying a trajectory typical of a Chinese DF-21 anti-ship ballistic missile, the MDA has made no comment as to the specific threat type being replicated by the MRBM target.

https://www.scribd.com/document/341375277/Three-Missions-One-Missile-SM-6-Changes-the-Arithmetic?secret_password=znhNNvhdnPQdjPFUwuHs

Has the PAC-3, or PAC-3 MSE been tested against an MRBM target? Besides, even that is not a half a million dollar interceptor as Clark suggests (although the PAC-3/MSE fits his criteria better than the ESSM). More like $4 Million plus change. 
« Last Edit: March 09, 2017, 02:43:24 am by bring_it_on »
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1850
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #82 on: March 09, 2017, 02:35:46 am »
But even the Block I doesn't cost half a million :)

Assuming it's possible, the per-unit  cost of reworking ESSM Block I to Block II standard
could be under half a million.

Thanks! But someone has paid for those Block I stockpile :). While in principle I agree with his notion that shortening the stand off range requirement gets you a larger magazine it won't get you to six figures in terms of cost, particularly when it comes to highly capable missiles that can defeat the spectrum of ASBM's out there that range from 300 or so km up to 2000+ kms. Given that you could swap out an SM2/SM6 with 2 MSE's it does appear be something worth considering in the future in terms of maximizing the ABM capability of the MSE if greater magazine depth is warranted. The Block II ESSM will probably struggle to match the ABM capability of the MSE.

Quote
Patriot fire units are slanted and the MSE launcher for the Medium Extended Air Defence System (MEADS) was canted marginally from vertical - for safety reasons - but a naval version would need to be fired vertically to fit into legacy launch cells and deck architecture, and provide all-round coverage. However, Barry McCullough, vice president of international business development for Aegis programmes said that the company proved the MSE's basic fit in a Mk.41 vertical launch system cell and its vertical launch capability in a launcher at Aberdeen Proving Ground.

Trotsky acknowledged that "there is a small amount of integration work required to get the missile into a vertical launch cell, but you can get two MSE in each launch canister". The missile's solid fuel configuration should also ease its integration into the shipboard environment.

It is also assumed (as Vago seems to have done) that the anti ship long range targeting, even using a ballistic missile is cost effective. I would love to see a cost comparison between an SM6, THAAD and DF-26. I mean a highly precise medium-intermediate range ballistic missile inventory is not going to be 'cheap' especially if you are going to use it as a swarm to overwhelm ship defenses at very long distances.
« Last Edit: March 09, 2017, 02:48:42 am by bring_it_on »
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11263
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #83 on: March 09, 2017, 05:02:09 am »
Although it has been widely reported that the target was flying a trajectory typical of a Chinese DF-21 anti-ship ballistic missile, the MDA has made no comment as to the specific threat type being replicated by the MRBM target.[/b]

Interesting.  I wonder how it was "widely reported" if the MDA made no specific announcements regarding threat types.  Sounds like a bunch of assumptions by the MSM that got picked up and copied by the rest of the MSM.  And unless the target they actually flew against was different than that in the video the MDA released, it was just your average Terrier-boosted, spin-stabilized ballistic target.  Nothing special.

Vanillia PAC-3 was tested against MRBMs at Kwajalein well over a decade ago, and has also been tested against maneuvering RVs.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1850
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #84 on: March 09, 2017, 06:49:41 am »
Quote
And unless the target they actually flew against was different than that in the video the MDA released, it was just your average Terrier-boosted, spin-stabilized ballistic target.  Nothing special.

Is there footage of the target missile for FTM-27? The one on DVIDS and MDA only shows interceptor launch. Maybe you are talking about a different test? From what we know based on open source reporting quoting Lockheed officials is that this particular target has only been used twice before and was contracted for in Q2 FY13. It's acquisition appears to be seperate from the eMRBM targets contracted for in the early 2000s.

https://www.dvidshub.net/video/500586/ftm-27-flight-test?sub_id=141437&utm_campaign=subscriptions&utm_medium=email&utm_source=141437&utm_content=asset_link

Official DOD PR read -

Quote
The Missile Defense Agency and sailors aboard USS John Paul Jones (DDG 53), an Aegis baseline 9.C1 equipped destroyer, today successfully fired a salvo of two SM-6 Dual I missiles against a complex medium-range ballistic missile target, demonstrating the Sea Based Terminal endo-atmospheric defensive capability and meeting the test's primary objective.

Quote
Vanillia PAC-3 was tested against MRBMs at Kwajalein well over a decade ago, and has also been tested against maneuvering RVs.

Thanks. Any details on the target in terms of range?
« Last Edit: March 09, 2017, 07:09:42 am by bring_it_on »
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11263
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #85 on: March 09, 2017, 07:16:11 am »
Thanks. Any details on the target in terms of range?

They tested against a 1000km range target at Kwajalein.  The target with the Pershing II warhead was a shorter ranged missile.  (Storm II)  If I had to guess it was to simulate Iskander.  No idea if they've tested against a full-up Pershing II analog.

http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/app4/storm.html

Something else to keep in mind, the recent Juno/MSE test could have simulated a much longer range missile than the A to B range might indicate depending on the flight profile.
« Last Edit: March 09, 2017, 07:20:01 am by sferrin »
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1850
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #86 on: March 09, 2017, 07:29:38 am »
Thanks. In BMD speak 1000 km would still be the upper limits of SRBM with MRBM extending out to 3000-3500km ranged weapons. I've read a small anti MRBM capability attributed to the MSE (can't seem to find it) but have not seen any testing extending to those ranges being made public. DF-21D has a range in the 1500-2000 km and DF-26 is claimed to have a 3000+ km range.
« Last Edit: March 09, 2017, 07:32:29 am by bring_it_on »
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11263
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #87 on: March 09, 2017, 07:49:16 am »
Thanks. In BMD speak 1000 km would still be the upper limits of SRBM with MRBM extending out to 3000-3500km ranged weapons. I've read a small anti MRBM capability attributed to the MSE (can't seem to find it) but have not seen any testing extending to those ranges being made public. DF-21D has a range in the 1500-2000 km and DF-26 is claimed to have a 3000+ km range.

I've seen differing classifications out there.  One said MRBMs go down to 1000km while 3000-3500km would be considered IRBMs. I would like to see them test a PAC-3 MSE against a full-range Pershing II analog, complete with maneuvering RV.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1850
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #88 on: March 09, 2017, 07:56:23 am »
I just use this (att.) from the MDA. Regardless, the MRBMs of interest are those beyond 1500 km like the DF-21D etc although there are even sub 500 km Anti ship BM's out there with Iran but I'd assume those are less problematic.
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11263
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #89 on: March 09, 2017, 08:13:32 am »
I just use this (att.) from the MDA. Regardless, the MRBMs of interest are those beyond 1500 km like the DF-21D etc although there are even sub 500 km Anti ship BM's out there with Iran but I'd assume those are less problematic.

Note that it shows PAC-3 out to 3000km range targets.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2164
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #90 on: March 09, 2017, 04:48:03 pm »
But even the Block I doesn't cost half a million :)

Assuming it's possible, the per-unit  cost of reworking ESSM Block I to Block II standard
could be under half a million.

Thanks! But someone has paid for those Block I stockpile :).

I think the argument is that the Block I stockpile represents a sunk cost. 
Assuming you can get reworked ESSM Block IIs for ~ $500K/each it's still cheaper per quadpack than a single PAC-3 MSE with a 50% reduction in APUC. 

Granted, the two missiles aren't in the same class and the Navy really should have looked at PAC-3 MSE (with a booster) for SBT. 
But I'm guessing that ESSM and SM-6's surface-to-surface modes are playing some role in convincing the Navy.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8524
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1850
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #92 on: April 06, 2017, 12:42:55 pm »
Navy white paper on Accelerated ship building plan

Quote
The Navy recently sent Defense Secretary Jim Mattis an accelerated shipbuilding plan that would build an additional 23 ships, at a cost of $61.8 billion, over the future years defense plan beginning in fiscal year 2017, according to a white paper obtained by Inside Defense.

The service's force-structure assessment that was released in December called for the Navy to grow its fleet to 355 ships.

"Breaking from the historically budget-driven process, the Navy has completed an internal review that has attempted to answer a very different question -- 'How rapidly could the Navy increase its force size guided by operational requirements, industrial base capacity, and good stewardship of the taxpayers' money?'" acting Navy Secretary Sean Stackley wrote in a Feb. 9 letter to Mattis that accompanied the white paper. The letter and white paper have not been previously reported.

Stackley admits in the letter the Navy's proposal is "ambitious" and could be considered as a future plan to recover from a long period of "deficit investment."

The accelerated shipbuilding plan calls for an additional DDG-51 Flight IIA destroyer, four DDG-51 Flight IIIs, five Ship-to-Shore Connectors, one Columbia-class ballistic missile sub, one LPD-17 amphibious transport dock, two LX(R)s, one LHA Flight I amphibious assault ship, three John Lewis-class oilers, one ocean surveillance ship replacement, one tug and salvage replacement ship, two Expeditionary Fast Transports, and three Expeditionary Mobile Bases.

The plan also cuts one Littoral Combat Ship and calls for two small surface combatant ships to be built each year after LCS is complete.

"Exploratory analysis indicates that existing shipyards have sufficient production capacity to accept additional orders for ships already under construction," according to the white paper. "This applies to DDG-51, Small Surface Combatants, LPD-17, T-EPF and T-ESB classes in particular."

Virginia-class submarines and Ford-class aircraft carriers have additional shipyard and supplier constraints that may prohibit rapidly ramping up production rates in the near term, the white paper reads.

The service proposes building a Ford-class carrier every three-and-one-half years instead of in five-year increments beginning with CVN-80 and CVN-81.

"Delivery of CVNs 81, 82, and 83 would be accelerated by one, two, and five years, respectively," according to the white paper.

The Navy suggests building Virginia-class subs at a rate of two boats per year and three in years that would not impact Columbia-class sub manufacturing.

Additionally, the Navy proposes an accelerated procurement plan of $29.6 billion for 268 additional aircraft over the FYDP beginning in FY-17.

The service argues an increase in aircraft is needed to outfit the additional ships in the proposed acceleration plan.

"Aircraft production lines that have the greatest amount of unused capacity include F-35, F/A-18E/F, V-22 (both CMV-22 and MV-22), MQ-4C, E-2D, and KC-130J," according to the white paper.

Over the FYDP the Navy proposes purchasing an additional 24 CMV-22Bs, 29 MV-22Bs, four C-40As, 11 E-2Ds, 52 F/A-18Es, 56 F/A-18Fs, 21 F-35Bs, 26 F-35Cs, 14 KC-130Js, four MQ-4Cs, 28 P-8As, and four UC-12Ws.

https://insidedefense.com/daily-news/proposed-navy-shipbuilding-plan-adds-23-ships-five-years
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8524
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8524
« Last Edit: April 25, 2017, 04:01:06 pm by bobbymike »
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8524
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8524
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline pathology_doc

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 789
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #97 on: April 30, 2017, 05:54:24 am »
http://breakingdefense.com/2017/04/slash-ship-design-time-in-half-cno-says/

Quality is necessary, but the best is the enemy of good enough. The big trouble is that IMO the US had eight years of being told it didn't need to be (or possibly even shouldn't be) a worldwide blue-water force and is now paying the price.

Offline Grey Havoc

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 8108
  • The path not taken.
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #98 on: April 30, 2017, 06:30:59 am »
http://breakingdefense.com/2017/04/slash-ship-design-time-in-half-cno-says/

Quality is necessary, but the best is the enemy of good enough. The big trouble is that IMO the US had eight years of being told it didn't need to be (or possibly even shouldn't be) a worldwide blue-water force and is now paying the price.

You can say that again!
The sole imperative of a government, once instituted, is to survive.

Offline Moose

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 914
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #99 on: April 30, 2017, 07:44:50 am »
http://breakingdefense.com/2017/04/slash-ship-design-time-in-half-cno-says/

Quality is necessary, but the best is the enemy of good enough. The big trouble is that IMO the US had eight years of being told it didn't need to be (or possibly even shouldn't be) a worldwide blue-water force and is now paying the price.
The last 8 years saw more blue-water hulls ordered and construction begun than the previous 8. And everyone's favorite punching bag, LCS, comes from a lot further back than 8 years.

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9705
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #100 on: April 30, 2017, 12:17:18 pm »
The big trouble is that IMO the US had eight years of being told it didn't need to be (or possibly even shouldn't be) a worldwide blue-water force and is now paying the price.

Who was the peer blue water competitor of the United States Navy when the decision was made that the next battlespace would be shallow coastal waters, aka littorals or green water, during the late 1990s and early 2000s? During the post-Cold War era, aka "New World Order" era, the future predictions were wrong. In the late 1990s and early 2000s, could decision makers have foreseen the arms build-up of the Russian Federation and the People's Republic of China? The problem is that instead of admitting that the future predictions were wrong and the world changed, you have asinine ideas like taking LCS and making it a frigate or guided-missile frigate. I don't know where you got the eight years from, it's been an issue since the George HW Bush Administration.
« Last Edit: April 30, 2017, 02:04:04 pm by Triton »

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11263
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #101 on: April 30, 2017, 01:19:18 pm »
The big trouble is that IMO the US had eight years of being told it didn't need to be (or possibly even shouldn't be) a worldwide blue-water force and is now paying the price.

Who was the peer blue water competitor of the United States Navy when the decision was made that the next battlespace would be shallow coastal waters, aka littorals or green water, during the late 1990s and early 2000s? During the post-Cold War era, aka "New World Order" era, the future predictions were wrong. In the late 1990s and early 2000s, could decision makers have foreseen the arms build-up of the Russian Federation and the People's Republic of China? The problem is that instead of admitting that the future prediction were wrong and the world changed, you have asinine ideas like taking LCS and making it a frigate or guided-missile frigate. I don't know where you got the eight years from, it's been an issue since the George HW Bush Administation.

It was pretty obvious to anybody paying attention what China's plans were when they bought the "casino" for a measly $20 million.  And here we are.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9705
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #102 on: April 30, 2017, 03:17:26 pm »
It was pretty obvious to anybody paying attention what China's plans were when they bought the "casino" for a measly $20 million.  And here we are.

No, it wasn't obvious. You seem to forget that Chinese companies also purchased Minsk (1995) and Kiev (1996) and operate them as tourist attractions to this day.  Minsk serves as a naval museum in Jiangsu, China. Kiev serves as a theme park in Tianjin. Chinese intentions for Varyag [/i (1998) were the subject of dispute until the rebuilding began, so don't give me the line that "it was pretty obvious to anybody paying attention what China's plans were when they bought the 'casino.'"

People also seem to conveniently forget the views of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England, acquisition chief John J Young, Jr., Senator John McCain, and Chairman of U.S. Senate Committee on Armed Services Senator John Warner concerning Cold War-era weapons programs and the lack of peer adversaries argument during the George W Bush Administration years. It's much easier to place blame on Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and the Obama Administration for your selective recollections.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11263
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #103 on: April 30, 2017, 03:46:34 pm »
No, it wasn't obvious. You seem to forget that Chinese companies also purchased Minsk (1995) and Kiev (1996) and operate them as tourist attractions to this day.  Minsk serves as a naval museum in Jiangsu, China. Kiev serves as a theme park in Tianjin. Chinese intentions for Varyag [/i (1998) were the subject of dispute until the rebuilding began, so don't give me the line that "it was pretty obvious to anybody paying attention what China's plans were when they bought the 'casino.'"

Well *I* thought it was perfectly obvious.  If you didn't I can't do anything about that.

People also seem to conveniently forget the views of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England, acquisition chief John J Young, Jr., Senator John McCain, and Chairman of U.S. Senate Committee on Armed Services Senator John Warner concerning Cold War-era weapons programs and the lack of peer adversaries argument during the George W Bush Administration years. It's much easier to place blame on Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and the Obama Administration for your selective recollections.

Who was it that canned two USAF generals who tried explaining the need of more F-22s because it didn't fit the narrative?  Oh right, that was Bob Gates.
« Last Edit: April 30, 2017, 03:49:10 pm by sferrin »
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8524
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #104 on: April 30, 2017, 03:58:21 pm »
No, it wasn't obvious. You seem to forget that Chinese companies also purchased Minsk (1995) and Kiev (1996) and operate them as tourist attractions to this day.  Minsk serves as a naval museum in Jiangsu, China. Kiev serves as a theme park in Tianjin. Chinese intentions for Varyag [/i (1998) were the subject of dispute until the rebuilding began, so don't give me the line that "it was pretty obvious to anybody paying attention what China's plans were when they bought the 'casino.'"

Well *I* thought it was perfectly obvious.  If you didn't I can't do anything about that.

People also seem to conveniently forget the views of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England, acquisition chief John J Young, Jr., Senator John McCain, and Chairman of U.S. Senate Committee on Armed Services Senator John Warner concerning Cold War-era weapons programs and the lack of peer adversaries argument during the George W Bush Administration years. It's much easier to place blame on Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and the Obama Administration for your selective recollections.

Who was it that canned two USAF generals who tried explaining the need of more F-22s because it didn't fit the narrative?  Oh right, that was Bob Gates.
I have consistently called out the George HW Bush administration on defense cuts ESPECIALLY the complete destruction/dismantlement of nuclear modernization. Can't remember how many times I was called a lunatic 'Cold Warrior' because of this.
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11263
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #105 on: April 30, 2017, 07:08:15 pm »
I have consistently called out the George HW Bush administration on defense cuts ESPECIALLY the complete destruction/dismantlement of nuclear modernization. Can't remember how many times I was called a lunatic 'Cold Warrior' because of this.

Oh those, "Cold War Relics®" were just so old fashioned.  The world today has show how wise we were to unilaterally dismantle most of our nuclear forces.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline DrRansom

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 512
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #106 on: April 30, 2017, 07:14:23 pm »
Oh those, "Cold War Relics®" were just so old fashioned.  The world today has show how wise we were to unilaterally dismantle most of our nuclear forces.

Consider tactical nuclear weapons, the US unilaterally divested of them and, in return, Russia retained a large arsenal. Today, the US has nothing to encourage any reduction of tactical weapons nor has enough for developing counter-force strike missions in North Korea. That unilateral reduction meant the US has no ways of negotiating a decrease or retaining a capability for developing threats.

As for development times, they have to come down for everything the US military produces. 20 year development cycles are completely unaffordable and have only produced a decaying military with prohibitively expensive new systems.

Offline NeilChapman

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 866
  • Interested 3rd party
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #107 on: May 04, 2017, 06:31:53 pm »

Every time "someone" figured the threats were reducing, "they" were wrong.  It's no use blaming a particular president or party.  The case needs to be made, regularly, to the electorate.

The only solution that makes sense is for the US to "determine" that its economic and military power is the solution to continued stability.

That translates to strategic military technology investments with production on a "war footing". 

Cyclical modernization,
vessels with shorter life spans or gutted and upgraded,
submarine quantities that meet tasking levels,
airframes being produced with variants planned on planned intervals (4 yrs?)
and a consistent budget that is 4-5% of GDP.

But that won't happen.  So here we all are.  Rehashing the same problem all over again.




Offline NeilChapman

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 866
  • Interested 3rd party

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8524
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2935
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #110 on: May 08, 2017, 02:56:38 pm »
Mk 48 is a submarine weapon (despite the Stingray picture they used to illustrate the article.)

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8524
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8524
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8524
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #113 on: May 18, 2017, 05:54:53 pm »
http://csbaonline.org/uploads/documents/Testimony_Sloman_May_18_FINAL.pdf

Quote
Amphibious ships are armed solely with self -defense weapons and are not considered surface combatants. By adding vertical launch systems (VLS) to these advanced combat vessels all of which are already constructed to the Navy’s rigorous warship survivability standards amphibious shipping could be armed   with   more   capable defensive weaponry   as  well as  offensive  anti-ship   and  land   attack missiles./quote]
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline NeilChapman

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 866
  • Interested 3rd party
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #114 on: May 19, 2017, 05:06:09 am »
http://csbaonline.org/uploads/documents/Testimony_Sloman_May_18_FINAL.pdf

Quote
Amphibious ships are armed solely with self -defense weapons and are not considered surface combatants. By adding vertical launch systems (VLS) to these advanced combat vessels all of which are already constructed to the Navy’s rigorous warship survivability standards amphibious shipping could be armed   with   more   capable defensive weaponry   as  well as  offensive  anti-ship   and  land   attack missiles./quote]

duhhh....

Never made sense that amphibs didn't have offensive punch.  Navy culture. 






Offline Moose

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 914
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #115 on: May 19, 2017, 07:15:56 am »
The LPDs were designed and built to accommodate a pair of 8-cell Mk41 VLS on the bow, but they weren't completed with VLS actually in place for cost reasons. Refitting the LPDs with VLS has always been on the table, it mainly comes down to when the Navy believes is the best time to spend the money

Offline lastdingo

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 554
  • Blogger http://defense-and-freedom.blogspot.de/
    • Defence and Freedom blog
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #116 on: May 20, 2017, 06:33:27 am »
The only solution that makes sense is for the US to "determine" that its economic and military power is the solution to continued stability.

That translates to strategic military technology investments with production on a "war footing". 

Cyclical modernization,
vessels with shorter life spans or gutted and upgraded,
submarine quantities that meet tasking levels,
airframes being produced with variants planned on planned intervals (4 yrs?)
and a consistent budget that is 4-5% of GDP.

I disagree, for several reasons.

The USN-specific reason is that there's no way the U.S. could NOT lose a naval arms race with PR China if the Chinese decided to become #1 naval power.
The U.S. has almost no shipyard capacity, and most of what it has are super-inefficient shipyards that have hardly had any customers other than the U.S. government for decades. They're perfectly non-competitive in regard to warship exports. Design, production, and working out debilitating teething problems of a new warship class takes much in excess of 10 years in the U.S..

China and South Korea are the shipyards of the world. The U.S. is mentioned under "others" in global ship production pie charts.
The U.S. ship production is smaller than Croatia's and Poland's. The U.S. is essentially a country without shipyard capacity to speak of, and thus unable to compete in a naval arms race with conventional designs. There's still enough steel production, but the establishment of productive shipyards would take longer than the Chinese would need to badly outnumber the USN.

To have 250 USN warships or 400, to have a USN with average ship age 15 years or 30 years matters little. The difference is as small as the Chinese maybe needing two or three more years to achieve a clear superiority.

Think of the proud Royal Navy battlefleet of 1890. Nothing of it was of much use by 1910.

There are ways to mitigate the shipyard situation, of course. They are NOT about building more warships and aircraft now, though.


And more specifically about the topic; USN warships need more ASW punch (especially a much better detection of silent subs with LFASS on all DDG) and the USN should learn to not lag behind missile technology so badly (something like SM-6 was feasible by the early 90's, same with ESSM Blk II, there's no modern SSM in USN service and the too few ASW missiles are embarrassing).
There was too much emphasis on bombing Third World shitholes with naval air and cruise missiles for too long.
The BMD craze didn't help either.


Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11263
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #117 on: May 20, 2017, 01:57:14 pm »
The only solution that makes sense is for the US to "determine" that its economic and military power is the solution to continued stability.

That translates to strategic military technology investments with production on a "war footing". 

Cyclical modernization,
vessels with shorter life spans or gutted and upgraded,
submarine quantities that meet tasking levels,
airframes being produced with variants planned on planned intervals (4 yrs?)
and a consistent budget that is 4-5% of GDP.

I disagree, for several reasons.

The USN-specific reason is that there's no way the U.S. could NOT lose a naval arms race with PR China if the Chinese decided to become #1 naval power.
The U.S. has almost no shipyard capacity, and most of what it has are super-inefficient shipyards that have hardly had any customers other than the U.S. government for decades. They're perfectly non-competitive in regard to warship exports. Design, production, and working out debilitating teething problems of a new warship class takes much in excess of 10 years in the U.S..

China and South Korea are the shipyards of the world. The U.S. is mentioned under "others" in global ship production pie charts.
The U.S. ship production is smaller than Croatia's and Poland's. The U.S. is essentially a country without shipyard capacity to speak of, and thus unable to compete in a naval arms race with conventional designs. There's still enough steel production, but the establishment of productive shipyards would take longer than the Chinese would need to badly outnumber the USN.

To have 250 USN warships or 400, to have a USN with average ship age 15 years or 30 years matters little. The difference is as small as the Chinese maybe needing two or three more years to achieve a clear superiority.

Think of the proud Royal Navy battlefleet of 1890. Nothing of it was of much use by 1910.

There are ways to mitigate the shipyard situation, of course. They are NOT about building more warships and aircraft now, though.


And more specifically about the topic; USN warships need more ASW punch (especially a much better detection of silent subs with LFASS on all DDG) and the USN should learn to not lag behind missile technology so badly (something like SM-6 was feasible by the early 90's, same with ESSM Blk II, there's no modern SSM in USN service and the too few ASW missiles are embarrassing).
There was too much emphasis on bombing Third World shitholes with naval air and cruise missiles for too long.
The BMD craze didn't help either.

Damn.  I agree with almost everything here.  I think the shipyard thing is even worse.  Even if we had an administration who funded a greatly expanded capacity, such a thing takes years and the next guy at the helm (if history is any indicator) would just f--k it up.  We'd have to do the politically impossible and "design in the US, build in South Korea or the US" to really grow the fleet. 
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8524
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #118 on: May 20, 2017, 03:42:29 pm »
The only solution that makes sense is for the US to "determine" that its economic and military power is the solution to continued stability.

That translates to strategic military technology investments with production on a "war footing". 

Cyclical modernization,
vessels with shorter life spans or gutted and upgraded,
submarine quantities that meet tasking levels,
airframes being produced with variants planned on planned intervals (4 yrs?)
and a consistent budget that is 4-5% of GDP.

I disagree, for several reasons.

The USN-specific reason is that there's no way the U.S. could NOT lose a naval arms race with PR China if the Chinese decided to become #1 naval power.
The U.S. has almost no shipyard capacity, and most of what it has are super-inefficient shipyards that have hardly had any customers other than the U.S. government for decades. They're perfectly non-competitive in regard to warship exports. Design, production, and working out debilitating teething problems of a new warship class takes much in excess of 10 years in the U.S..

China and South Korea are the shipyards of the world. The U.S. is mentioned under "others" in global ship production pie charts.
The U.S. ship production is smaller than Croatia's and Poland's. The U.S. is essentially a country without shipyard capacity to speak of, and thus unable to compete in a naval arms race with conventional designs. There's still enough steel production, but the establishment of productive shipyards would take longer than the Chinese would need to badly outnumber the USN.

To have 250 USN warships or 400, to have a USN with average ship age 15 years or 30 years matters little. The difference is as small as the Chinese maybe needing two or three more years to achieve a clear superiority.

Think of the proud Royal Navy battlefleet of 1890. Nothing of it was of much use by 1910.

There are ways to mitigate the shipyard situation, of course. They are NOT about building more warships and aircraft now, though.


And more specifically about the topic; USN warships need more ASW punch (especially a much better detection of silent subs with LFASS on all DDG) and the USN should learn to not lag behind missile technology so badly (something like SM-6 was feasible by the early 90's, same with ESSM Blk II, there's no modern SSM in USN service and the too few ASW missiles are embarrassing).
There was too much emphasis on bombing Third World shitholes with naval air and cruise missiles for too long.
The BMD craze didn't help either.

Damn.  I agree with almost everything here.  I think the shipyard thing is even worse.  Even if we had an administration who funded a greatly expanded capacity, such a thing takes years and the next guy at the helm (if history is any indicator) would just f--k it up.  We'd have to do the politically impossible and "design in the US, build in South Korea or the US" to really grow the fleet.
And if the 'flag went up' in the South China Sea 2030-40 the US would probably have to strike first and very hard and take out a potentially much larger fleet in port. Instead of Pearl Harbor think 'Pearl River Delta'
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline lastdingo

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 554
  • Blogger http://defense-and-freedom.blogspot.de/
    • Defence and Freedom blog
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #119 on: May 21, 2017, 12:56:10 am »
"Design in US, build in South Korea" would risk a preventive attack on South Korea.
The U.S. might then still have naval superiority, but its deterrence would have failed, indeed it would have been perverted.


My approach is different;
  • ARAPAHO V2.0. Containerised subsystems that can turn cargo ships into armed merchantmen (even surface raiders to find blockade runners).
  • Add ASW & AEW helicopters and you have a self-defending convoy. No FFG construction needed, no additional invasion ("amphibious") warships for $ 2 bn a piece needed.
  • Reorient CVBGs from land attack towards sea battle (subsonic + supersonic anti-ship missiles, long range anti-radar missiles!)* to close the gaps between practical area of operation of midair-refuelled land-based combat aviation).
  • Commence production of vastly more cost-efficient AIP SSKs (SSIs) for $ 400 million per copy in place of $ 2.6 bn SSNs.


This approach doesn't require much shipyard capacity (mostly for SSIs).
The naval superiority would be with whoever has access to more cargo ships, and that would be the U.S..

The USN would NEVER pursue such a strategy because armed services are bureaucracies, and bureaucracies pursue their self-interest. It takes a stern civilian political leadership to change the bureaucracies' course from pursuit of self-interest towards pursuit of national interest. Americans are unable to do this with their armed services because they have a naive respect for top bureaucrats whenever said top bureaucrats wear an uniform. Thus they waste an unfathomable fortune on pursuing the self-interest of a naval bureaucracy, for example: More hulls! More hulls! More hulls! Regardless of how ridiculous the prices have become.

The U.S. will lose a naval arms race if the Chinese want to win it.


*: My fig leaf of being on topic.
---------------------

An alternative would be a political strategy:

http://defense-and-freedom.blogspot.de/2017/02/a-hypothetical-naval-treaty.html
http://defense-and-freedom.blogspot.de/2017/02/a-security-treaty-for-east-asia-north.html

Again, not something the USN would recommend because it's pursuing its self-interest.
« Last Edit: May 21, 2017, 01:12:19 am by lastdingo »

Offline lastdingo

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 554
  • Blogger http://defense-and-freedom.blogspot.de/
    • Defence and Freedom blog
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #120 on: May 21, 2017, 01:18:55 am »
Some more related links (mostly old blog posts)

global shipbuilding, 2004
http://defense-and-freedom.blogspot.de/2008/03/shocking-shipbuilding-industry.html

global shipbuilding, 2013
https://defense-and-freedom.blogspot.de/2014/05/global-shipbuilding-industries.html

state of affairs with Western air-launched anti-ship missiles (short answer: neglected in Europe)
http://defense-and-freedom.blogspot.de/2017/04/anti-ship-strike-from-air-and-european.html

potential use of C-17 for anti-ship saturation missile attacks
http://defense-and-freedom.blogspot.de/2017/03/the-y-20-and-transport-bombers-in.html

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2164
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #121 on: May 21, 2017, 12:40:40 pm »

And more specifically about the topic; USN warships need more ASW punch (especially a much better detection of silent subs with LFASS on all DDG) and the USN should learn to not lag behind missile technology so badly (something like SM-6 was feasible by the early 90's, same with ESSM Blk II, there's no modern SSM in USN service and the too few ASW missiles are embarrassing).
There was too much emphasis on bombing Third World shitholes with naval air and cruise missiles for too long.
The BMD craze didn't help either.

The presence of bi-static LF receivers on US and threat submarines means that placing LFASS in
emitting form on a warship is a really bad idea unless you want your warship to be a torpedo/ASCM soak.
 
As a receiver in a multi-static configuration, sure.

Neither SM-6 nor ESSM Blk II were feasible in the early 90's since the
composite track/clutter mitigation/datalink technology that enable the active seeker to
be useful at terminal handover were not yet developed or refined.

What was done in the 90's was IR seekers on SM and improvements to RAM.

The anti-surface versions of SM-6 and TLAM are reasonably modern but
LRASM will be a big improvement.

I tend to agree with you on ASW missiles though there's still
the signature issue which isn't there from torpedoes with glide kits
launched from MPAs or dropped from ASW helicopters.

The BMD craze has been paced by the threat which has only gotten
worse in the intervening decades.

Offline lastdingo

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 554
  • Blogger http://defense-and-freedom.blogspot.de/
    • Defence and Freedom blog
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #122 on: May 21, 2017, 01:24:15 pm »
The presence of bi-static LF receivers on US and threat submarines means that placing LFASS in
emitting form on a warship is a really bad idea unless you want your warship to be a torpedo/ASCM soak.
 
As a receiver in a multi-static configuration, sure.

Neither SM-6 nor ESSM Blk II were feasible in the early 90's since the
composite track/clutter mitigation/datalink technology that enable the active seeker to
be useful at terminal handover were not yet developed or refined.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonar_2087
https://www.thalesgroup.com/sites/default/files/medias/documents/MP%203206%20SONAR%202087.pdf

The USN may feel free to deploy some active LFAS tow ship, but I suppose we all know it would gold-plate it into a destroyer before it's willing to add two such ships into a CVBG. They equipped almost no dedicated LFAS ships ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveillance_Towed_Array_Sensor_System ) so far.

An Arleigh Burke DDG has extremely poor odds against a conventional AIP submarine because it won't detect it passively and its active sonar is short-ranged against that threat (and of course giving the DDG's location away just like a LFAS would).

Helicopter sonobuoys can't be used to screen ahead of a CVBG at 20+ nm width when said CVBG cruises with 15+ kts for a week. That's 30 sq nm per hour, 720 per day, about 5,000 per week. This would require ten thousands of expensive active sonobuoys for a single CVBG and week, for the old expectation of 2,500 m range doesn't apply to relatively small conventional subs with anechoic tiles and you need two, better three sonobuoys in range to get a fix (and none of them should be in front of the sub, for the echo is weak in that direction).

The USN with ~11 CVNs and maybe 4-5 CVBGs in wartime could not possibly rely on sonobuoys for first sub detection in a multi-week conflict. The math is merciless in this regard.

---------

AIM-120 was ready by the early 1990's, so to have an active radar seeker naval SAMs in service was feasible by the early 90's.
The USN did not hesitate to replace Sparrow with AMRAAM for whatever clutter issues. AIM-120A arrived in the very early 90's (some copies were even carried in Desert Storm '91), and the B version in 1994. They both had data downlink already.

The Aster missile family was in service in 2001.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aster_(missile_family)
Its testing against air targets began in around '93-'95 and against seaskimmers in 1997, with some direct hits.

SM-6 arrived 12 years after Aster. The USN was and is badly lagging in regard to deployment of active radar SAMs.
It was too much in love with its 'AEGIS + SM-2' approach and too occupied with the BMD craze.
Keep in mind that the combination of E-2D, SM-6 and ESSM Blk II put a huge question mark behind those huge SPY-x radars and thus the Arleigh Burke DDG concept in itself. Active radar SAMs are "disruptive" to the USN.

BTW, hard kill is but one method against quasiballistic anti-ship missiles, and it incurs huge costs and requires to give away some key ships' position with powerful emissions by search radars.

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2164
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #123 on: May 21, 2017, 04:12:06 pm »

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonar_2087
https://www.thalesgroup.com/sites/default/files/medias/documents/MP%203206%20SONAR%202087.pdf


Still monostatic installations which due to the inherent range resolution limitations of LF requires a helicopter or MPA
to go perform a finer grained sweep.

Frankly, I'm only sanguine about non-acoustic techniques against modern subs.

Still there are 5 US LFASS platforms and (through cost sharing) 3 Japanese LFAS platforms available which is adequate
but not ideal.

But again, threat subs equipped with bi-static LF receivers are likely to have near FCQ
tracks of LF emitters long before the sub is detected.  So you better attach the emitters to platforms
you can afford to lose or that are sufficiently low-value that a sub skipper is not willing to
risk exposing his position by attacking.


AIM-120 was ready by the early 1990's, so to have an active radar seeker naval SAMs in service was feasible by the early 90's.
The USN did not hesitate to replace Sparrow with AMRAAM for whatever clutter issues. AIM-120A arrived in the very early 90's (some copies were even carried in Desert Storm '91), and the B version in 1994. They both had data downlink already.

AIM-120 A/B were uplink only and totally unsuited to maritime clutter and multipath environments.
AMRAAM didn't get credible counter-cruise missile updates until C6 and, ideally, the firing platform
still needs a beam aspect on the target.

At best, it would been useful solely in last ditch defense for which RAM is inherently better
suited.

The Aster missile family was in service in 2001.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aster_(missile_family)
Its testing against air targets began in around '93-'95 and against seaskimmers in 1997, with some direct hits.

And much shorter range (in the form that was tested during that period) than ESSM or SM.
As pointed out above, things are easier for active RF missiles if the handover is quick since error
accumulation in target track is, to a first order approximation, a function of time and therefore range.

It was too much in love with its 'AEGIS + SM-2' approach and too occupied with the BMD craze.

Which of course explains the IR seeker and trajectory shaping additions to SM-2 which are
not AEGIS dependent and strictly focused on airbreathing sea skimmers. 


Keep in mind that the combination of E-2D, SM-6 and ESSM Blk II put a huge question mark behind those huge SPY-x radars and
thus the Arleigh Burke DDG concept in itself.

They don't. How do you think the ship tracks and communicates with these long range,
active missiles in flight, at range and against jamming?

SM-6 is also a completely different beast than Aster; compare the range and aperture size
not to mention the varied mission set.

Aside from OTH (or the near OTH) case, the main utility of active RF SAMs is in reducing dependence
on illuminators in the terminal phase during large raids.

Of course, ICWI waveforms from shipborne AESAs can do this as well but not every SM/ESSM
launching platform has these so there's a need for an active seeker. 

BTW, hard kill is but one method against quasiballistic anti-ship missiles, and it incurs huge costs and requires to give away some key ships' position with powerful emissions by search radars.

Very few of the proposed soft-kill mechanisms hold up under scrutiny (e.g. DIRCM against IIR)
and still put the defender at the mercy of Red's war reserve modes. They are a fine adjunct
to hard-kill in that they help preserve hard-kill inventory.

In many cases, the ship's own radars aren't being employed for anything but the terminal phase
or interceptor uplink/downlink.

Offline lastdingo

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 554
  • Blogger http://defense-and-freedom.blogspot.de/
    • Defence and Freedom blog
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #124 on: May 22, 2017, 02:29:17 am »
Repeat; the USN had its first active radar homing SAM in service 12 years after the Europeans. That's a severe lag because


Aside from OTH (or the near OTH) case, the main utility of active RF SAMs is in reducing dependence
on illuminators in the terminal phase during large raids.

IS HUGE.

Plain old Super Etendard + Exocet attacks as of 1982 were extremely difficult to deal with using only what Arleigh Burkes and Ticos had prior to SM-6 because of the low altitude horizon issue. The Super Etendards would rarely be shot down by the ships' defences. This changed radically with active radar homing SAMs if there is AEW available. It's similar with San Carlos-style scenarios and self-defence in port.
Without active radar homing SAMs the USN had to rely on fighters.

The USN is addressing the deficit and I have high expectations for ESSM Blk II, but the existence of the deficit shows that it's far from perfect in making use of technology advances. A lag of 12 years behind an ally is embarrassing for a service with such an obscene budget. There are almost certainly systemic problems, and those should be addressed - not only their symptoms of the past.

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2164
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #125 on: May 23, 2017, 12:14:13 am »
Repeat; the USN had its first active radar homing SAM in service 12 years after the Europeans. That's a severe lag because

Repeat: The USN had an IR seeker equipped version of SM-2 in the
fleet inventory in the 90's.  AFAIK, there is still no European equivalent.

SM-2 Blk IIIB is not dependent on illuminators and was designed
(in conjunction with some maneuverability enhancements) specifically
to defeat the sea skimming threat.

It had an unprecedentedly successful IOT&E and FOT&E.
Modern versions are still in production and still being sold.

I can only conclude that you are repeatedly ignoring it because it doesn't fit your premise.

ICWI handles saturation attacks very well and versions of ESSM and SM have
supported that waveform since the 90's.*

So the only thing left is the OTH or near-OTH case for which remote illuminators
are absolutely required. Active seekers do fulfill that role but you still need the
datalinks to put the missile in the OTH or near-OTH box in the first place. 

* The USN absolutely deserves criticism for not having more shipborne AESAs
by this point and for not embracing sea-based Hit-to-kill; it's likely
some threat ASCMs are armored beyond what blast frag can consistently
overcome.

 

Offline lastdingo

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 554
  • Blogger http://defense-and-freedom.blogspot.de/
    • Defence and Freedom blog
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #126 on: May 23, 2017, 12:36:06 am »
Excuse me, ESSM supported some waveform in the 90's? It came into service only after 2000.


So far I've seen claims that the IR seeker on the SM-2 Blk III is for ECCM (sensor fusion with semi-active terminal guidance), and but once that it's good enough for stand-alone seeker mode and thus for OTH engagements. Even that one was exclusively about sea skimmer threat, not about overland threats. The seeker is rather small (smaller than RAM's or Sidewinder's) and I doubt that it has a large footprint, so in case of a NLOS engagement the midcourse guidance would need to be very accurate and the terminal phase very short.

Or in other words; I largely ignored that IR seeker, thinking of it as an equivalent to some clever ECCM algorithms. It's nothing like Aster's or SM-6's active radar seeker.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11263
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #127 on: May 23, 2017, 05:04:15 am »
it's likely
some threat ASCMs are armored beyond what blast frag can consistently
overcome.

IIRC the P-1000 Vulkan has a titanium armored warhead/front end. 
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2164
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #128 on: May 24, 2017, 11:48:30 pm »
Excuse me, ESSM supported some waveform in the 90's? It came into service only after 2000.


So far I've seen claims that the IR seeker on the SM-2 Blk III is for ECCM (sensor fusion with semi-active terminal guidance), and but once that it's good enough for stand-alone seeker mode and thus for OTH engagements. Even that one was exclusively about sea skimmer threat, not about overland threats. The seeker is rather small (smaller than RAM's or Sidewinder's) and I doubt that it has a large footprint, so in case of a NLOS engagement the midcourse guidance would need to be very accurate and the terminal phase very short.

Or in other words; I largely ignored that IR seeker, thinking of it as an equivalent to some clever ECCM algorithms. It's nothing like Aster's or SM-6's active radar seeker.

The ICWI waveform was developed in the 90's for SM and later applied to ESSM.
The transceiver was ready long before the radars that emitted the waveform were ready.

I didn't claim any particular OTH capability for SM-2 Block IIIB though it likely has some.
My point was that its development along with most of the composite track and datalink tech in the 90's
was focused on the air breathing threat not the BMD craze.

The main envisioned use of all of the above (as is now the vision for ESSM Blk II)
was to launch on remote and intercept sea skimmers near the horizon.
It's AEGIS and illuminator independent.


Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8524
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8524
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8524
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #131 on: June 20, 2017, 09:43:08 pm »
https://news.usni.org/2017/06/20/houses-2018-defense-bill-increase-ddg-ssn-production-rates-buy-carriers-every-3-years

Quote
The House Armed Services Committee’s defense bill for 2018 would allow the Navy to buy 15 Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyers and 13 Virginia-class attack submarines over the next five years instead of the 10 each the Navy wanted, would urge the Navy to buy aircraft carriers every three years, and would force the destroyer shipbuilders to make quicker progress upgrading to the Flight III ship design that boasts a more impressive radar, HASC aides told reporters today.
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8524
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1850
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #133 on: July 03, 2017, 03:25:28 pm »
IIRC the original SCO project involved integrating it with a radar, possibly the HAMMR. Hope they are planning on sticking to it.
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11263
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8524
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #135 on: July 03, 2017, 09:38:08 pm »
http://www.scout.com/military/warrior/story/1675096-army-howitzer-fires-navy-rail-gun-round

A shame they don't have a competitive howitzer to fire it from:


Wow just wow 15 to 3 rounds now multiply that buy five or ten platforms. My biggest beef with Bush41 was his complete elimination of all nuclear modernization but the damage to modernization overall that has arguably persisted to this  day has put us in such a hole don't know if we'll ever catch up.
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8524
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11263
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #137 on: July 04, 2017, 06:52:20 pm »
http://www.realcleardefense.com/2017/07/04/joint_leonardo-bae_munition_could_triple_us_navy_gun_range_294581.html

And I "could be the next winner in the Publisher's Clearing House Sweepstakes".  I'll believe it when I see it deployed.   
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11263
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #138 on: July 07, 2017, 03:45:49 am »
http://nationalinterest.org/feature/exclusive-cno-announces-the-return-vertical-launch-system-21425

"The U.S. Navy is looking to restore its ability to reload its ships’ vertical launch systems at sea, which could be a dramatic logistical game changer in the planning and execution of high-intensity contingencies against peer competitors.

This encouraging revelation comes from an exclusive one-on-one conversation with Chief of Naval Operations John Richardson following his remarks at the U.S. Naval War College’s 2017 Current Strategy Forum last month."

Except: 1. it reduces the round loadout by 3 cells worth per bank of modules.
            2. the reason they got rid of it in the first place was it was dubious at best.  Reloading a heavy round like a Tomahawk (or SM-3 Block II I'd imagine) in anything but glass-smooth seas was apparently quite the adventure.

« Last Edit: July 07, 2017, 04:50:53 am by sferrin »
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2935
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #139 on: July 07, 2017, 05:53:52 am »
There are solutions to the reloading problem that don't depend on the strike-down crane. I haven't read the 2009 paper about robotic reloading systems, but given that it's by Marvin O. Miller, it's probably related at a concept of his that was first trialed at Port Hueneme in the 1980s.  That kept the missile canister under positive control throughout the loading cycle, unlike the strike-down crane.  (There was a very detailed article about it in UNREP Journal at the time.  No way to find that again now, though.)  The only real downside was the length of time alongside required -- you could be UNREPing for a solid day if you had really depleted the magazines on a cruiser, for example.  That's kind of hell on the bridge watch, even if the weapon handling itsself is automated.

I think the suggestion of forward but not underway replenishment may make more sense. If you can add cranes and the other gear to a replenishment ship to allow a combatant to raft alongside in an anchorage and quickly reload VLS there, it might make more sense than trying to find an UNREP solution.  They've been doing this sort of thing on a much smaller scale for subs for a while, reloading their TLAMs in port in a forward area and sending them back out to shoot some more.

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2935
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #140 on: July 07, 2017, 08:59:53 pm »
 Aha! I found an excerpt from  the UNREP Journal article here:

http://ukarmedforcescommentary.blogspot.com/2013/10/vertical-launching-systems-and-type-26.html
Quote
The concept for replenishing 15 VLS per hour in Sea State 5, shown in Figures 9, 10, 11 and 12 centers around a transportable VLS rearming device that is stowed and maintained on the Combat Logistics Force (CLF) ship. When the combatant ship comes alongside for at-sea rearming or load adjustment, the rearming device is transported from the CLF ship by the new Heavy Unrep rig to the combatant ship sliding padeye along with a team to operate the rearming device. A swing arm at the base of the sliding padeye is used to position the rearming device onto three low profile rails permanently mounted atop the VLS launcher. A hydraulic power unit on the combatant ship powers the swing arm and also the rearming device after it is on the rails.

The CLF ship will next transfer a loaded VLS canister to the sliding padeye. The canister will be lowered to the swing arm by the sliding padeye and then be released from the transfer rig. The canister will be swung around and be picked off from the swing arm by the rearming device two clamp rings. The canister will be moved by the rearming device to a position over an empty cell. The cell hatch will open and the rearming device will erect the canister to the vertical. The canister will be lowered by a wire rope hoist into the cell. The rig will be disconnected from the end of the canister, the cell hatch will close and the canister will be connected below decks to the VLS circuits. When the VLS rearming or VLS load adjustment is completed, the rearming device and team will be returned to the CLF ship.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8524
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8524
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8524
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8524
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8524
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8524
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8524
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8524
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8524
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8524
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline Moose

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 914
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #151 on: January 03, 2018, 11:58:28 pm »
DDG Service Life Extension has been moving forward since 2008, I'm at a loss as to why anyone would be trying to portray it as a new initiative. I'm also a bit confused and skeptical about the scheduling he's proposing, though that's maybe a bit in the weeds for the topic.

The shipyard recap request is nice, will be nicer if it actually happens.
« Last Edit: January 04, 2018, 12:02:01 am by Moose »

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8524
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8524
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline fredymac

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1299
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #154 on: January 10, 2018, 03:23:14 am »
VLS cells mounted above the deck plus a high power microwave EMP system for self defense.


Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2935
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #155 on: January 10, 2018, 04:12:30 am »
Cocoon is back, 20 years later.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11263
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #156 on: January 10, 2018, 04:39:31 am »
Looks like a good way to take up a lot of deck space.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8524
« Last Edit: January 10, 2018, 05:26:47 am by bobbymike »
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2935
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #158 on: January 10, 2018, 06:09:00 am »
Looks like a good way to take up a lot of deck space.

Works if you have the deck area but not the hull depth for a vertical launcher.   

It's funny that the video says it was done "several years ago" because Cocoon as a design dates to the mid to late 1990s.  As the video says, it was originally proposed for carriers (angled to keep VLS booster cans away from the flight deck) where they already had the area on the sponsons where the Mk 29s trainable launchers sit. I think it was alo pitched for the large-deck amphibs and maybe even LSDs, all cases where  they had deck area rto play with but not a lot of enclosed volume to lose.

Now they have a requirement to retrofit LCS, which has some dedicated deck area but not the depth for Mk 41.   Same basic use case; more flexible than just slapping dedicated SSM tubes on the ship (assuming you have fire control for anything else).
« Last Edit: January 10, 2018, 06:55:32 am by TomS »

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11263
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #159 on: January 10, 2018, 07:26:45 am »
Looks like a good way to take up a lot of deck space.

Works if you have the deck area but not the hull depth for a vertical launcher.   

It's funny that the video says it was done "several years ago" because Cocoon as a design dates to the mid to late 1990s.  As the video says, it was originally proposed for carriers (angled to keep VLS booster cans away from the flight deck) where they already had the area on the sponsons where the Mk 29s trainable launchers sit. I think it was alo pitched for the large-deck amphibs and maybe even LSDs, all cases where  they had deck area rto play with but not a lot of enclosed volume to lose.

Now they have a requirement to retrofit LCS, which has some dedicated deck area but not the depth for Mk 41.   Same basic use case; more flexible than just slapping dedicated SSM tubes on the ship (assuming you have fire control for anything else).

Are these things Strike length or the shorter, ESSM, Self-Defense?
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2935
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #160 on: January 10, 2018, 07:46:36 am »
Strike-length, judging by the canister he pulled out of the model.  I think the USN is not interested in other cell lengths because that creates problems in the logistics chain.  Different ships need different types of canisters for the same missiles, which is undesirable.

Come to think of it, has anyone bought Tactical or Self-Defense Mk 41 at all?  Or are they all Strike-Length?


Offline DrRansom

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 512
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #161 on: January 10, 2018, 08:22:17 am »
I wonder about the microwave system, specifically how hard will it be for other countries to radiation harden their missile electronics? What I suspect is that the microwave system will be very effective against current and older systems, but a little bit of engineering and a slightly higher cost unit will make it ineffective against next generation weapons.

A similar thought goes for low-powered lasers, just how hard is it to achieve some minimal level of protection against directed energy? Nobody has done that yet, but the basic armor may be pretty easy.

As for the comment about cruisers, all I can say is that I really dislike the phrase "people ask me about X, well we're not calling the replacement X." That style of thinking has produced an unmitigated string of development disasters, think the LCS as a frigate replacement or the Army's unending string of R&D mistakes over the past two decades. It is a fake intellectualism, a cheap way of sounding smart without sign of serious thought into the program.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11263
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #162 on: January 10, 2018, 08:24:07 am »
I wonder about the microwave system, specifically how hard will it be for other countries to radiation harden their missile electronics? What I suspect is that the microwave system will be very effective against current and older systems, but a little bit of engineering and a slightly higher cost unit will make it ineffective against next generation weapons.

A similar thought goes for low-powered lasers, just how hard is it to achieve some minimal level of protection against directed energy? Nobody has done that yet, but the basic armor may be pretty easy.

As for the comment about cruisers, all I can say is that I really dislike the phrase "people ask me about X, well we're not calling the replacement X." That style of thinking has produced an unmitigated string of development disasters, think the LCS as a frigate replacement or the Army's unending string of R&D mistakes over the past two decades. It is a fake intellectualism, a cheap way of sounding smart without sign of serious thought into the program.

Have to agree.  What the hell is wrong with calling it a cruiser?  It's what they need.  Denying it isn't going to help anybody. 
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline DrRansom

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 512
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #163 on: January 10, 2018, 08:35:18 am »
Have to agree.  What the hell is wrong with calling it a cruiser?  It's what they need.  Denying it isn't going to help anybody.

It is that phrasing which makes me fear that PCA is going to fail spectacularly. The USAF is calling the PCA something different from a fighter, not a fighter, but something else, something better (tm).

I get AoA and changing concepts to reflect technological and theater changes. But this type of phrasing reflects intellectual confusion and I have yet to see an example of this type of language leading to anything good.

Really, it is the military following the worst of the 'disruption' marketing crap.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11263
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #164 on: January 10, 2018, 08:57:31 am »
Have to agree.  What the hell is wrong with calling it a cruiser?  It's what they need.  Denying it isn't going to help anybody.

It is that phrasing which makes me fear that PCA is going to fail spectacularly. The USAF is calling the PCA something different from a fighter, not a fighter, but something else, something better (tm).

I get AoA and changing concepts to reflect technological and theater changes. But this type of phrasing reflects intellectual confusion and I have yet to see an example of this type of language leading to anything good.

Really, it is the military following the worst of the 'disruption' marketing crap.

To me when I hear that kind of language I see someone doing the hand-wavey thing with really no idea where they're going or how they're going to get there. 
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline DrRansom

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 512
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #165 on: January 10, 2018, 10:26:13 am »
To me when I hear that kind of language I see someone doing the hand-wavey thing with really no idea where they're going or how they're going to get there.

I'm also suspicious when people call the F-22 or F-35 a F/A/EA/RF - XX. That also screams sloppy thinking. A modern fighter plane can do a ton of stuff, but with a single pilot, limited fuel, and limited training hours, you can only do one thing per flight and a few things per squadron. Instead of being inspiring, it sounds like exactly as you said, they don't know what they want to do, just that they want to do 'something amazing with new technology.'

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2164
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #166 on: January 10, 2018, 11:13:54 am »
On the PCA taxonomy, I think one of the study authors said that "fighter" often connotes a 9G, 50 degree AoA aircraft.

On cruiser taxonomy,  I wonder if they are thinking about relaxing things like top speed and total VLS cell count in exchange
for bigger radars, longer endurance and at-sea VLS reloadability e.g. the LPD-based future surface combatant.

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2935
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #167 on: January 10, 2018, 11:16:22 am »
As for the comment about cruisers, all I can say is that I really dislike the phrase "people ask me about X, well we're not calling the replacement X." That style of thinking has produced an unmitigated string of development disasters, think the LCS as a frigate replacement or the Army's unending string of R&D mistakes over the past two decades. It is a fake intellectualism, a cheap way of sounding smart without sign of serious thought into the program.

Have to agree.  What the hell is wrong with calling it a cruiser?  It's what they need.  Denying it isn't going to help anybody.

It gets awkward to build a new "cruiser" on a DDG-51 hull.  You know that's going to be one of the proposals. 

It could also be weird if they settle on an LPD-17 derivative.  Calling that a "cruiser" might perturb some folks in Congress.


Offline DrRansom

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 512
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #168 on: January 10, 2018, 12:30:02 pm »
On the PCA taxonomy, I think one of the study authors said that "fighter" often connotes a 9G, 50 degree AoA aircraft.

On cruiser taxonomy,  I wonder if they are thinking about relaxing things like top speed and total VLS cell count in exchange
for bigger radars, longer endurance and at-sea VLS reloadability e.g. the LPD-based future surface combatant.

That's fine in theory, but in practice this type of language usually accompanies really mushy thinking about the vehicle being purchased and it's role.

It'd be so much cleaner to say:
PCA - we're buying a new type of fighter, better suited to modern environments, but doing the air superiority mission all the same
Cruiser - we need a cruiser to escort the aircraft carriers, so we need ships which can provide area air defense and control and we will see what that looks like

Instead, they get into a confusing and juvenile article about semantics.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11263
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #169 on: January 10, 2018, 12:48:12 pm »
As for the comment about cruisers, all I can say is that I really dislike the phrase "people ask me about X, well we're not calling the replacement X." That style of thinking has produced an unmitigated string of development disasters, think the LCS as a frigate replacement or the Army's unending string of R&D mistakes over the past two decades. It is a fake intellectualism, a cheap way of sounding smart without sign of serious thought into the program.

Have to agree.  What the hell is wrong with calling it a cruiser?  It's what they need.  Denying it isn't going to help anybody.

It gets awkward to build a new "cruiser" on a DDG-51 hull.  You know that's going to be one of the proposals. 

It could also be weird if they settle on an LPD-17 derivative.  Calling that a "cruiser" might perturb some folks in Congress.

They really need to swallow their pride and not end the Zumwalt line.  It's already setup to do the things the Tico replacement will need to handle, and if they got the unit number up the cost would go down.  They're going to try to cheap their way out of things and cost twice as much in the end (and that's if we're lucky).
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2164
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #170 on: January 11, 2018, 09:43:35 am »
They really need to swallow their pride and not end the Zumwalt line.  It's already setup to do the things the Tico replacement will need to handle, and if they got the unit number up the cost would go down. 

Totally agree especially with AMDR-X (FXR) 7 years out.
AFAIK, they did leave SWAP-C on Zumwalt to accommodate a version of SPY-6.

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2164
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #171 on: January 11, 2018, 05:29:06 pm »
Remember the...

It's GFE on FFG(X)

Offline Colonial-Marine

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 586
  • Fighting the UAV mafia.
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #172 on: January 11, 2018, 05:43:28 pm »
Still think we should have stuck with the 76mm and gotten updated guns and munitions in that caliber. No idea why we switched over to 57mm for the LCS and whatever else it's on.
"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedy."

Offline Moose

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 914
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #173 on: January 11, 2018, 11:11:53 pm »
Then went for higher RoF and more ammo over the bigger caliber.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11263
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #174 on: January 12, 2018, 05:13:38 am »
Then went for higher RoF and more ammo over the bigger caliber.

A Super Rapid with Vulcano would be tough to beat with a 57mm gun.  (Well, except for weight obviously.)

http://www.leonardocompany.com/en/-/vulcano-76

http://www.leonardocompany.com/en/-/76-62-super-rapid
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline jsport

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1182
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #175 on: January 12, 2018, 10:42:34 am »
Remember the...

It's GFE on FFG(X)

On different thread RDEC determined 60mm was the best CRAMA round. The MML missile version in the background pic is great but a MPF or next IFV w/ a 57mm gun would be better for Navy and Army and eventually AF gunships.  :)

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2935
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #176 on: January 12, 2018, 11:27:35 am »
Remember the...

It's GFE on FFG(X)

I can't find anything on how ALAMO actually works -- either steering or seeker.  Any hints?

Offline Moose

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 914
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #177 on: January 13, 2018, 08:10:16 am »
Then went for higher RoF and more ammo over the bigger caliber.

A Super Rapid with Vulcano would be tough to beat with a 57mm gun.  (Well, except for weight obviously.)

http://www.leonardocompany.com/en/-/vulcano-76

http://www.leonardocompany.com/en/-/76-62-super-rapid
Not defending the decision  just explaining it. And Vulcano was not an option when the decision was made.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8524
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8524
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #179 on: January 14, 2018, 10:41:12 am »
Navy in 2016 considered 'frictionless' requirement for a 500-ship fleet

In 2016, the Navy considered a need for hundreds more warships than the 355 the service eventually decided represents the force-level goal needed to execute the Obama administration's defense strategy, according to a senior official involved in crafting the 2016 Force Structure Assessment.
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9705
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #180 on: January 14, 2018, 02:20:05 pm »
Navy in 2016 considered 'frictionless' requirement for a 500-ship fleet

In 2016, the Navy considered a need for hundreds more warships than the 355 the service eventually decided represents the force-level goal needed to execute the Obama administration's defense strategy, according to a senior official involved in crafting the 2016 Force Structure Assessment.

Siource:
https://insidedefense.com/daily-news/navy-2016-considered-frictionless-requirement-500-ship-fleet

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8524
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #181 on: January 17, 2018, 06:40:35 am »
https://news.usni.org/2018/01/16/30631

Surface Navy Working to Bring Firepower Over the Horizon Through Networking, F-35 Integration
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8524
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1850
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #183 on: January 18, 2018, 06:23:42 am »
Navy in 2016 considered 'frictionless' requirement for a 500-ship fleet

In 2016, the Navy considered a need for hundreds more warships than the 355 the service eventually decided represents the force-level goal needed to execute the Obama administration's defense strategy, according to a senior official involved in crafting the 2016 Force Structure Assessment.

Siource:
https://insidedefense.com/daily-news/navy-2016-considered-frictionless-requirement-500-ship-fleet

Expand the LCS program and aim to buy 3 sub $1 billion FFG(X) vessels a year at peak production would still not get them anywhere close. They could get there if they start counting UUVs ;)
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1850
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #184 on: January 22, 2018, 04:08:25 pm »
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2164
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #185 on: February 05, 2018, 03:48:09 pm »
Boeing did mention that there was a lot of foreign military interest in the extended range version.

..


WASHINGTON, FEB. 5, 2018 - The State Department has made a determination approving a possible Foreign
Military Sale to Finland of RGM-84Q-4 Harpoon Block II+ ER Grade B Surface-Launched Missiles and RGM-84L-4
Harpoon Block II Grade B Surface-Launched Missiles for an estimated cost of $622 million.  The Defense Security
 Cooperation Agency delivered the required certification notifying Congress of this possible sale today.

The Government of Finland has requested a possible sale of one hundred (100) RGM-84Q-4 Harpoon Block II
Plus (+) Extended Range (ER) Grade B Surface-Launched Missiles, twelve (12) RGM-84L-4 Harpoon Block II
Grade B Surface-Launched Missiles, twelve (12) RGM-84Q-4 Harpoon Block II+ ER Grade B Surface-Launched
Upgrade Kits, four (4) RTM-84L-4 Harpoon Block II Grade B Exercise Surface-Launched Missiles, and four (4)
RTM-84Q-4 Harpoon Block II+ ER Grade B Exercise Surface-Launched Missiles.  Also included are containers,
spare and repair parts, support and test equipment, publications and technical documentation, personnel
training and training equipment, technical assistance, engineering and logistics support services, and other
related elements of logistical support.  The estimated total case value is $622 million.

This proposed sale will support the foreign policy and national security objectives of the United States by
improving the security of a partner nation that has been, and continues to be, an important force for political
stability and economic progress in Europe

Finland intends to use the missiles on its Hamina class ships, Multirole Corvette ships, and Coastal Batteries. 
The missiles will provide enhanced capabilities in effective defense of critical sea lanes.  The proposed sale of
the missiles and support will increase the Finnish Navy's maritime partnership potential and increase regional
security capability.  Finland has not purchased Harpoon Block II+ ER previously, but will have no difficulty
incorporating this capability into its armed forces.

...

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2935
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #186 on: February 06, 2018, 03:35:30 am »
I hadn't seen the term Grade B applied to Harpoon before.  Turns out it refers to the type of launch canister used.  There's a lightweight canister (MK 6) intended mainly for FACs, a thick wall canister (MK 12) for the battleships, and the Grade B standard shock-resistant canister (MK 7) for everything else.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8524
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline Moose

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 914
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #188 on: February 16, 2018, 05:38:24 pm »
Five pretty much expected options. Pretty disappointed there was no comprehensive accounting of the bidders before this award, though, would have been interesting to see if there were more longshot bids like Atlas or if Eastern had submitted an OPC variant.

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9705
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #189 on: February 16, 2018, 07:08:27 pm »
HIII Patrol Frigate

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9705
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #190 on: February 16, 2018, 07:33:52 pm »
Five pretty much expected options. Pretty disappointed there was no comprehensive accounting of the bidders before this award, though, would have been interesting to see if there were more longshot bids like Atlas or if Eastern had submitted an OPC variant.

Quote
The Navy would not confirm how many groups bid for the work. At least one U.S.-German team that was not selected for a design contract, Atlas USA and ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems, told USNI News they had submitted for the competition.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11263
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #191 on: February 17, 2018, 03:42:21 am »
I wonder why SK wasn't in the mix:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daegu-class_frigate

"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Moose

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 914
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #192 on: February 17, 2018, 05:07:51 am »
I wonder why SK wasn't in the mix:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daegu-class_frigate
A Korean co may have made an initial  bid,  but it hasn't  been publicized if so and the Navy isn't discussing bids which were outside the Top 5. My understanding a few months ago was that there were 9 or more total bidders, other than Atlas none were made public.

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1850
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #193 on: February 17, 2018, 05:08:44 am »
As the Navy develops the final RFP it would be interesting to see what path they take in terms of valuing growth over the lifetime. Really liking the FREMM here personally.

On the Harpoon, it seems a seeker upgrade is in the works...

Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline NeilChapman

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 866
  • Interested 3rd party
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #194 on: February 17, 2018, 11:46:40 am »


So the expected price is ~$900M BEFORE government furnished equipment, correct?  As in all the expensive radar and weapons systems.

Is there any idea what the government furnished equipment will cost for this ship? 



Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2164
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #195 on: February 17, 2018, 01:41:02 pm »
As in all the expensive radar and weapons systems.

Is there any idea what the government furnished equipment will cost for this ship?

Which is the most important question actually. EASR alone is around $100M.

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1850
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #196 on: February 17, 2018, 02:17:16 pm »


So the expected price is ~$900M BEFORE government furnished equipment, correct?  As in all the expensive radar and weapons systems.

Is there any idea what the government furnished equipment will cost for this ship?

Quote
The target basic construction cost is USD495 million, the USN said, which does not include cost of non-recurring construction plans and other associated costs for a lead ship, government-furnished combat or weapon systems, or change orders.

The programme office, the USN said, “Envisions a [fiscal year] 2020 competition that will consider existing parent designs for a small surface combatant that can be modified to accommodate FFG(X) requirements”. Jane's Defence Weekly Nov.2017

Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11263
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #197 on: February 19, 2018, 01:44:07 pm »
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Colonial-Marine

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 586
  • Fighting the UAV mafia.
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #198 on: February 19, 2018, 06:57:37 pm »
As the Navy develops the final RFP it would be interesting to see what path they take in terms of valuing growth over the lifetime. Really liking the FREMM here personally.

On the Harpoon, it seems a seeker upgrade is in the works...
I also like the FREMM but my concern is that both it and the F100-derived design are over 6,000 tons and closer to miniature destroyers than genuine frigates, with all of the cost that involves.

I suppose upgrading the seekers on existing Harpoons is cost efficient but I do wonder if that money would be better spent procuring more LRASM.

I really wish the Navy would pick up development of the LRASM-B again. The fact that they dropped it in the first place seems downright crazy to me.
"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedy."

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9705
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #199 on: February 19, 2018, 09:20:12 pm »
As the Navy develops the final RFP it would be interesting to see what path they take in terms of valuing growth over the lifetime. Really liking the FREMM here personally.

On the Harpoon, it seems a seeker upgrade is in the works...
I also like the FREMM but my concern is that both it and the F100-derived design are over 6,000 tons and closer to miniature destroyers than genuine frigates, with all of the cost that involves.

I suppose upgrading the seekers on existing Harpoons is cost efficient but I do wonder if that money would be better spent procuring more LRASM.

I really wish the Navy would pick up development of the LRASM-B again. The fact that they dropped it in the first place seems downright crazy to me.

There is also a new seeker in the works for a Maritime Strike Tomahawk that will be used to upgrade part of the 4,000 plus Block IV Tomahawk missiles in inventory. While LRASM-A has the advantage of stealth, the Tomahawk has a range of 1,000 miles compared to LRASM-A's 200 mile range.

Source:
https://breakingdefense.com/2017/09/tomahawk-vs-lrasm-raytheon-gets-119m-for-anti-ship-missile/
« Last Edit: February 20, 2018, 09:30:07 pm by Triton »

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11263
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #200 on: February 20, 2018, 05:06:37 am »
There is also a new seeker in the works for a Maritime Strike Tomahawk that will be used to upgrade part of the 4,000 plus Block IV Tomahawk missiles in inventory. While LRASM-B has the advantage of stealth, the Tomahawk has a range of 1,000 miles compared to LRASM-B's 200 mile range.

Source:
https://breakingdefense.com/2017/09/tomahawk-vs-lrasm-raytheon-gets-119m-for-anti-ship-missile/

You mean LRASM-A.  LRASM-B was the ASALM based design.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1850
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #201 on: February 20, 2018, 05:33:55 am »
Quote
I really wish the Navy would pick up development of the LRASM-B again. The fact that they dropped it in the first place seems downright crazy to me.

Wasn't it supposed to be a DARPA funded program? IMO the Navy needs to develop a High and Low end NGLAW strategy with the higher end focusing on Hypersonic demonstrations that are expected over the next few years while the lower end focuses on more of the TLAM role of relatively cheap, mass produced cruise missile..
« Last Edit: February 20, 2018, 05:35:52 am by bring_it_on »
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline Colonial-Marine

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 586
  • Fighting the UAV mafia.
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #202 on: February 20, 2018, 08:59:33 pm »
Wasn't it supposed to be a DARPA funded program? IMO the Navy needs to develop a High and Low end NGLAW strategy with the higher end focusing on Hypersonic demonstrations that are expected over the next few years while the lower end focuses on more of the TLAM role of relatively cheap, mass produced cruise missile..
I think you are right about it being a DARPA funded program. I'd also like to eventually see a mix of hypersonic missiles and a cheaper TLAM successor incorporating LO features similar to what you see on JASSM. Yet until the hypersonic designs are ready I think a supersonic design like LRASM-B would be a very good capability to have.
"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedy."

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8524
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #203 on: March 12, 2018, 08:57:57 pm »
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/03/for-the-navy-strike-capability-should-be-top-priority/#slide-1

Quote
The United States Navy needs to make some hard choices if it wishes to remain relevant in the Anti-Access/Area Denial (A2AD) security environment that lies ahead of it. It must begin to adjust its strategy as well as its accompanying shipbuilding and aircraft-procurement plans to enable it to fight and win within the emerging great-power competition. This new environment, at last recognized in President Trump’s National Security Strategy and the Secretary of Defense’s National Defense Strategy, requires the Navy to strike enemy capitals and other vital centers of gravity from range, but the Navy’s decision to bypass a carrier-based strike asset, and now even to push off its acquisition of an unmanned mission tanker, suggest that it is not taking A2AD great-power competition seriously. Its decisions place the future relevance of the entire maritime service, at least as it is presently composed, at risk.

https://news.usni.org/2018/03/07/navy-working-new-fleet-size-study-following-latest-strategic-reviews

Quote
CAPITOL HILL — Following the release of new national security and defense strategies, the Navy is undertaking a new Fleet Structure Assessment that could alter its stated goal of a 355-ship fleet, senior service officials told Congress this week.

A new FSA would take a look at the mix of surface ships and submarine in the service and could change assumptions on the look and size of the future fleet, Vice Adm. Bill Merz, deputy chief of naval operations for warfare systems (OPNAV N9), told the House Armed Services seapower and projection forces subcommittee on Tuesday.

“We intend to do another FSA with the new National Defense Strategy.
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline jsport

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1182
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #204 on: March 15, 2018, 08:25:44 am »
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/03/for-the-navy-strike-capability-should-be-top-priority/#slide-1

Quote
The United States Navy needs to make some hard choices if it wishes to remain relevant in the Anti-Access/Area Denial (A2AD) security environment that lies ahead of it. It must begin to adjust its strategy as well as its accompanying shipbuilding and aircraft-procurement plans to enable it to fight and win within the emerging great-power competition. This new environment, at last recognized in President Trump’s National Security Strategy and the Secretary of Defense’s National Defense Strategy, requires the Navy to strike enemy capitals and other vital centers of gravity from range, but the Navy’s decision to bypass a carrier-based strike asset, and now even to push off its acquisition of an unmanned mission tanker, suggest that it is not taking A2AD great-power competition seriously. Its decisions place the future relevance of the entire maritime service, at least as it is presently composed, at risk.

EMRGS are not a means to threaten enemy capitals and and other vital COGs at range as an alternative to missiles and aircraft. EMRGS do not deliver sufficiently large explosive KE at extreme range. One needs sufficient payload to range. EMRGS currently are small caliber, not large payload. Still wondering why EMRG for anything but defense.  A single purpose weapon takes up too much space of the already limited real estate. 


Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11263
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #205 on: March 15, 2018, 08:46:00 am »
A single purpose weapon takes up too much space of the already limited real estate.

What "single-purpose" weapon?  All those Mk45s in the fleet?  A railgun is no more "single-purpose" than a conventional gun.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline jsport

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1182
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #206 on: March 15, 2018, 08:53:16 am »
A single purpose weapon takes up too much space of the already limited real estate.

What "single-purpose" weapon?  All those Mk45s in the fleet?  A railgun is no more "single-purpose" than a conventional gun.

Conventional guns can deliver explosive payloads as state. Not so much for EMRGs currently or anytime soon.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11263
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #207 on: March 15, 2018, 09:53:33 am »
A single purpose weapon takes up too much space of the already limited real estate.

What "single-purpose" weapon?  All those Mk45s in the fleet?  A railgun is no more "single-purpose" than a conventional gun.

Conventional guns can deliver explosive payloads as state. Not so much for EMRGs currently or anytime soon.

Which doesn't preclude them from being used against surface targets, at much further distances than all those Mk45s I might add. 
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline jsport

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1182
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #208 on: March 15, 2018, 07:06:15 pm »
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/03/for-the-navy-strike-capability-should-be-top-priority/#slide-1

Quote
The United States Navy needs to make some hard choices if it wishes to remain relevant in the Anti-Access/Area Denial (A2AD) security environment that lies ahead of it. It must begin to adjust its strategy as well as its accompanying shipbuilding and aircraft-procurement plans to enable it to fight and win within the emerging great-power competition. This new environment, at last recognized in President Trump’s National Security Strategy and the Secretary of Defense’s National Defense Strategy, requires the Navy to strike enemy capitals and other vital centers of gravity from range, but the Navy’s decision to bypass a carrier-based strike asset, and now even to push off its acquisition of an unmanned mission tanker, suggest that it is not taking A2AD great-power competition seriously. Its decisions place the future relevance of the entire maritime service, at least as it is presently composed, at risk.

Even the BAE 155mm EMRG (w/a  larger payload than that of short range conventional 127mm) is not enough to threaten capitals and COGs if the Navy's decision is to forgo a carrier-based strike asset.

 .."the future relevance of the entire maritime service, at least as it is presently composed, at risk."

 Either alot more missiles or larger caliber long range gun. Best accomplished as a ETC gun.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11263
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #209 on: March 16, 2018, 04:56:06 am »
Best accomplished as a ETC gun.

Nobody else seems to think so.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2164
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #210 on: March 16, 2018, 11:46:50 am »
An alternative to both EMRG and ETC* would be extended range rounds via
a propulsion (or aero) stack on the round itself. 

Assuming you could meet the Navy's IM reqs on the propellant front,
this approach would probably require far fewer shipboard/gun modifications.

* DSSP's preso had an ETC gun lobbing BTERM/MS-SGP.

(image from this year's SNA symposium with my highlight)

Offline jsport

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1182
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #211 on: March 16, 2018, 05:18:51 pm »


Energetics Energetics. propellants and explosives as stated.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8524
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #212 on: March 19, 2018, 03:39:06 pm »
https://breakingdefense.com/2018/03/package-deal-navy-could-save-5-10-buying-two-carriers/

Quote
WASHINGTON: After months of prep work with the shipyard, the Navy is formally asking Newport News Shipbuilding to propose a plan to build two 1,000-foot-long supercarriers on a single contract. The chairmen of the House and Senate seapower subcommittees were quick to applaud the idea, saying it could “save billions.” If approved, the so-called “block buy” could accelerate aircraft carrier production and help the Navy build up to the 12-carrier fleet required by law.
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8524
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #213 on: March 22, 2018, 07:19:14 am »


JSOW, MALD and HARM vs. The Advanced Threat
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline jsport

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1182
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #214 on: March 22, 2018, 12:38:28 pm »
Missiles always provide more options than guns, but until additive manufacturing companies like "Desktop Metal" and "Relativity" bring 'real' affordability and genuine modularity to every type of missile/rocket from bullet size to the heavy lift to the moon then guns will still be cheaper.   Sensors are getting cheaper/smaller more accurate, stealth is getting cheaper. control systems getting cheaper. Missiles in the west are just way too expensive and until there is very disruptive rethink, will remain so. Other factors are holding up genuine jumps in affordable volumes and capability. 

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2164
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #215 on: March 23, 2018, 01:55:21 pm »
Remember the...

It's GFE on FFG(X)

I can't find anything on how ALAMO actually works -- either steering or seeker.  Any hints?

 
The HE-4G cartridge is an electrically-primed cartridge designed to function
in the 57mm MK 110 Gun Mount (GM), and is intended for combating surface
and air targets. The fixed cartridge consists of a Radio Frequency Guided Projectile (RFGP),
brass cartridge case, and energetics qualified for Navy use. The RFGP is comprised of a
Guidance Section, an Advanced Divert Module (ADM) with a Fuze Safe & Arm (FSA), and a
warhead. The RFGP detects a target and its guidance electronics provide course correction
to the ADM that fires four energetic bolts, at appropriate times, to adjust the projectile's course.
The fuze has two programmable modes of operation: Proximity Mode and Point Detonate Delay.

https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=27d0b088cadd17770ca9a70b008b7267&tab=core&_cview=1

Online SpudmanWP

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 970
WE4-45-1-08     OMHIWDMB
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

Offline jsport

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1182
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #217 on: March 24, 2018, 09:05:01 am »
Put that thing on Stryker/Piranha. Could operate in more terrain and under more threat than a truck mounted MML.

AHEAD ammo eat your heart out.

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2164
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #218 on: March 24, 2018, 05:11:14 pm »
50mm x 228 for BM III vs 57mm x 330 (?) for HE-4G? 

Given that the Navy is only paying $13,000/round for 1500 LRIP rounds it's certainly
worth looking at further miniaturization.

Offline jsport

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1182
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #219 on: March 25, 2018, 10:18:01 am »
50mm x 228 for BM III vs 57mm x 330 (?) for HE-4G? 

Given that the Navy is only paying $13,000/round for 1500 LRIP rounds it's certainly
worth looking at further miniaturization.

Defeating KE rds ie the CRAM mission would seen to make in worth a joint USN/USMC as well as the USA economies of scale effort. Shoot maybe on AC-130Us against AAMs and SAMs even.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8524
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #220 on: March 28, 2018, 08:02:23 am »
https://blog.usni.org/posts/2018/03/27/countertargeting-offense-enabler-and-defense-enhancer

Quote
The U.S. Navy may one day face a numerically superior opponent that uses a unique blend of technology, synchronization, and the benefit of numbers to overcome a comparative western advantage in technology. In addition to maintaining a technical edge, the Navy must revitalize its own asynchronous capabilities to develop effective countertargeting measures to counter an opponent’s numbers and achieve maritime superiority.

Thousands of drums greeted the global television audience watching the opening ceremonies of the Beijing Olympic in August 2008. With a blend of technology and synchronized choreography, the ceremonies captured China’s long history, rich culture, and tradition of innovation and invention.
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline lastdingo

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 554
  • Blogger http://defense-and-freedom.blogspot.de/
    • Defence and Freedom blog
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #221 on: March 28, 2018, 08:50:44 am »
https://blog.usni.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Figure-1.jpg

The USNI blog piece appears to rest its case on simplistic math (not even something like the Lanchester equations) at least for explaining.
One should always remember that missiles can re-target after a horizontal target approach onto some small decoy. Only the diving missiles are gone for good if they fell for a decoy. This doesn't appear to have been included in the underlying math.


I'll add two blog posts relevant to this topic:

about blue water anti-surface warfare
http://defense-and-freedom.blogspot.de/2018/02/modern-warships-iv-asuw.html

this builds upon an earlier part of the series about anti air warfare, where categories of threats were identified and described with examples:
http://defense-and-freedom.blogspot.de/2018/02/modern-warships-iii-aaw.html
« Last Edit: March 28, 2018, 08:57:21 am by lastdingo »

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8524
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #222 on: April 04, 2018, 06:38:11 am »
https://www.themaven.net/warriormaven/sea/navy-seeks-new-advanced-sensors-weapons-for-new-frigate-2023-2kpcmXL-5kyz2pfbaGoE3A/

Quote
The Navy envisions a new multi-mission Guided Missile Frigate able to sense enemy targets from great distances, fire next-generation precision weaponry, utilize new networking and ISR technologies, operate unmanned systems and succeed against technically advanced enemies in open or “blue” water combat, according to service statements.

The service is now refining and analyzing design, sensor and weapons concepts for the new ship, called the FFG(X), as it moves into a formal Conceptual Design phase after awarding a major contract.

Naval Sea Systems Command recently chose five shipbuilders to advance designs and technologies for the ship, awarding development deals to General Dynamics Bath Iron Works, Austal USA, Huntington Ingalls, Marinette Marine Corporation and Lockheed Martin.
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1850
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #223 on: April 05, 2018, 04:44:00 am »
The Frigate competition would be interesting to follow. They have included foreign designs but it remains to be seen whether they actually stand any chance whatsoever when pitted against the 2 LCS incumbents.
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline Moose

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 914
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #224 on: April 05, 2018, 08:40:31 am »
The Frigate competition would be interesting to follow. They have included foreign designs but it remains to be seen whether they actually stand any chance whatsoever when pitted against the 2 LCS incumbents.
My reading of the program has them with a very good chance, in fact, as the program has been slowly scaling up their target capabilities/requirements. A not-insignificant number of Navy leaders really are seeking to squeeze as much as Combatant as they can under that $950m-ish pricetag, and that is an indication in favor of the Europeans, especially since the F100 (which forms a basis for Bath's proposal) is often considered a "baby Burke." At this point, I think the best argument the LCS-based teams have is the preservation of industrial base, which is complicated by other factors like Fincantieri's pledge to build their FREMM-based design at MM.

Still wish we knew something more about HII's actual bid with their NSC derivative, and something about the couple bidders we never saw public information on.
« Last Edit: April 05, 2018, 08:42:13 am by Moose »

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2164
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #225 on: April 05, 2018, 11:17:34 am »
The Frigate competition would be interesting to follow. They have included foreign designs but it remains to be seen whether they actually stand any chance whatsoever when pitted against the 2 LCS incumbents.

Which I find funny given that the two LCS incumbents are foreign designs.

The Program office overseeing the FFG(X) competition is in an awkward position
since its also managing the MMSC FMS case.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11263
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #226 on: April 05, 2018, 11:43:31 am »
By the time they get done it's going to be as expensive as a Burke.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2935
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #227 on: April 05, 2018, 12:46:48 pm »
By the time they get done it's going to be as expensive as a Burke.

Hipefully it will at least be cheaper to run.  Maybe some fuel savings from only having a pair of GTs to feed.

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1850
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #228 on: April 05, 2018, 12:55:25 pm »
Quote
Which I find funny given that the two LCS incumbents are foreign designs.

My reference was in the context of the current competition. The two LCS based designs represent the status-quo programs scaling to meet the demands of the new requirements whereas some of the others will be seen as foreign designs, operational elsewhere, which will be brought in and built in the US.
« Last Edit: April 05, 2018, 01:01:22 pm by bring_it_on »
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline Moose

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 914
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #229 on: April 06, 2018, 06:50:41 am »
By the time they get done it's going to be as expensive as a Burke.

Hipefully it will at least be cheaper to run.  Maybe some fuel savings from only having a pair of GTs to feed.
If the crew is smaller and the plant more efficient, it will definitely cost less to run.

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2164
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #230 on: April 06, 2018, 09:34:52 am »
By the time they get done it's going to be as expensive as a Burke.

Hipefully it will at least be cheaper to run.  Maybe some fuel savings from only having a pair of GTs to feed.
If the crew is smaller and the plant more efficient, it will definitely cost less to run.

Which makes the Navy's abandonment of hybrid-electric drive backfits and
forward-fits on the DDG-51s all the more baffling.

Offline Moose

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 914
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #231 on: April 06, 2018, 06:03:44 pm »
By the time they get done it's going to be as expensive as a Burke.

Hipefully it will at least be cheaper to run.  Maybe some fuel savings from only having a pair of GTs to feed.
If the crew is smaller and the plant more efficient, it will definitely cost less to run.

Which makes the Navy's abandonment of hybrid-electric drive backfits and
forward-fits on the DDG-51s all the more baffling.
Not to mention the secondary benefit that the experience would provide to a surface fleet that needs to be getting familiar with electric drive components. But, hey, someone int he new leadership thought it was a "waste." So there's that.

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2164
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #232 on: April 10, 2018, 01:35:02 pm »
50mm x 228 for BM III vs 57mm x 330 (?) for HE-4G? 

Given that the Navy is only paying $13,000/round for 1500 LRIP rounds it's certainly
worth looking at further miniaturization.

Defeating KE rds ie the CRAM mission would seen to make in worth a joint USN/USMC as well as the USA economies of scale effort. Shoot maybe on AC-130Us against AAMs and SAMs even.

(courtesy of freddymac in the LCS thread)


Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1850
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #233 on: April 10, 2018, 04:54:29 pm »
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1850
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #234 on: April 11, 2018, 02:38:33 am »
...
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline fredymac

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1299
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #235 on: April 11, 2018, 03:10:43 am »
BAE Systems  ORKA 57mm guided projectile.  This one looks a bit expensive (almost like a small Excalibur) and I wonder if they have stopped development after L3 was selected for production.


Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8524
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #236 on: April 12, 2018, 05:55:44 am »
https://breakingdefense.com/2018/04/hull-watch-355-ship-navy-might-take-until-2052-navy-official-concedes/?utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=62045159&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-8jSJiudN3T1QnKjibSLtzHWVXLewItQaZSB50x1O7x5d19S8gZTZ5DbtfVZCXaU4NMZmHn8Sk5j1UGKAToMJHXN49vSQ&_hsmi=62045159

Quote
SEA AIR SPACE: After months of quietly backing away from its goal of a 355-ship fleet, the Navy finally ran into some congressional opposition today. Then, just hours after the House seapower chairman told the Navy to stop making his job harder, the undersecretary of the Navy said the 355 goal probably couldn’t be reached until 2052.

So the one study where the Navy said they needed about 450 ships is around 2152?
« Last Edit: April 12, 2018, 06:16:02 am by bobbymike »
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1850
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #237 on: April 12, 2018, 06:04:39 am »
Navy’s top officer lays out aggressive new cruiser replacement strategy


Quote
“We’re going to start putting the pedal to the metal on the next major surface combatant,” Richardson said Wednesday afternoon. “I think we learned a lot in the frigate discussion and turned around the major surface combatant discussion in record time.

“I’d like to do the whole thing, well, as fast as possible but do it in the frigate timeframes: in terms of defining what we want, the requirements, getting industry involved, making it a very open competition."

The Navy will be zeroing in on what they want out of their new ship very quickly, Richardson said, which means shipbuilders and industry could be getting bids together on the Navy’s new major surface combatant in a matter of months instead of years.

“I’d like to get this pretty well defined in the 2018, 2019 timeframe,” he said.

Richardson pointed to three main focus areas for a new major surface combatant: An existing hull form to speed up acquisition; excess power capacity; and the ability to rapidly switch out systems.

“Some parts of that ship are going to be very similar to ships that are around right now (hull forms) and that’s going to last the life of the ship,” Richardson said. “So, let’s get a hull form — and there are probably ones out there that are just fine."

The second area Richardson pointed to is the electrical plant, a must if the Navy is going to integrate lasers and electromagnetic weapons in the future.

“Power plant and power generation — you need to really pay attention to that because its very hard to change after you buy it," he said. "And if you think about the kinds of combat systems and weapons systems we’re going to have on future ships, they have got to be able to generate pulsed power and those sorts of things.

“So, lots of power. Buy as much power as you can afford because it’s like RAM on your computer, you’re going to need more as soon as you buy it.”

The third area, Richardson said, is that new technology must be easily switched during short stints in the yards, not requiring major ship alterations to accommodate new systems.

“Everything else, though, is swappable,” Richardson continued. “And that has to be designed in to the DNA of the ship so you can come in on a short upkeep and swap out your radar system, or your combat system, or put this weapons system in.

“It has a lot to do with designing standards so that everybody can build to those standards so it’s a much more dynamic, swappable type of a thing.”

Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline totoro

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 244
    • Binkov's Battlegrounds
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #238 on: April 12, 2018, 06:14:26 am »
There's basically two options for the hull. Burke or Zumwalt. Zumwalt seems less likely until one considers it already has the excess power capacity, new gen propulsion already integrated with the hull.  IF the cost issues with zumwalt stemmed from the radars, combat systems, stealth and so on - and not from the hull and propulsion itself, then it seems plausible zumwalt could be the best starting point.

Now, if 15 thousand tons is too much for USN future cruiser, then it's got to be Burke's hull. That'd basically mean flight IV, a ship with major changes, and sort-of an all-out burke fleet for the next 50 years for USN.
www.youtube.com/c/binkovsbattlegrounds - military analysis videos

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2935
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #239 on: April 12, 2018, 06:48:22 am »
There's basically two options for the hull. Burke or Zumwalt. Zumwalt seems less likely until one considers it already has the excess power capacity, new gen propulsion already integrated with the hull.  IF the cost issues with zumwalt stemmed from the radars, combat systems, stealth and so on - and not from the hull and propulsion itself, then it seems plausible zumwalt could be the best starting point.

Now, if 15 thousand tons is too much for USN future cruiser, then it's got to be Burke's hull. That'd basically mean flight IV, a ship with major changes, and sort-of an all-out burke fleet for the next 50 years for USN.

The Burke is too tight to provide excess power generation or rapid system swap capability.  The Zumwalt is the obvious choice, possibly stretched back out to the original design length. 

The other candidate is probably an LPD-17 hull.  Question is whether that hullform be made significantly faster with more propulsion power.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11263
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #240 on: April 12, 2018, 07:16:41 am »
The Zumwalt is the obvious choice.  The other decision is if they do a "Flight II" variant of the cruiser that is nuclear powered.  There will be a need for a lot of juice with DEWs, large radars, and railguns, and the demand will only increase over time.  Also, if you do a cruiser variant that helps out the 3 DDGs in the gun department as there would be more deployed guns making the ammo issue go away.  I'd consider taking the rear gun out though and replacing it with Northrop Grummans Modular Launch System VLS.

http://www.northropgrumman.com/Capabilities/SurfaceShipEjectLaunch/Documents/modular-launch-system.pdf

« Last Edit: April 12, 2018, 07:19:57 am by sferrin »
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Moose

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 914
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #241 on: April 12, 2018, 07:28:37 am »
There's basically two options for the hull. Burke or Zumwalt. Zumwalt seems less likely until one considers it already has the excess power capacity, new gen propulsion already integrated with the hull.  IF the cost issues with zumwalt stemmed from the radars, combat systems, stealth and so on - and not from the hull and propulsion itself, then it seems plausible zumwalt could be the best starting point.

Now, if 15 thousand tons is too much for USN future cruiser, then it's got to be Burke's hull. That'd basically mean flight IV, a ship with major changes, and sort-of an all-out burke fleet for the next 50 years for USN.
While researching Burke upgrades over the years the Navy has discovered that the utility and cost benefit of re-using a hull lie in reusing as much of it's existing design as possible. If you start making changes which are too large, the money and time needed to make it work will start to rival a "clean sheet" design. This is part of the reason we've never seen anything like a major hull extension added, and why the Flight III preserves as much Flight IIA as possible in it's design. The DDG-51 hull was not designed with an Integrated Power System in mind, and has just about reached the point where nothing more can be "packed in" without making major and costly changes. There has been talk, off and on since the 80s, of using the basic hullform of a Burke as the starting point for an otherwise new Cruiser, but that had less to do with saving money than from starting with known and desirable characteristics. This is all my long-winded way of saying: the Cruiser Replacement described by Richardson cannot be a "Flight IV" Burke, so either we'll build a Flight IV which won't meet those requirements or we'll meet those requirements with something else.

« Last Edit: April 12, 2018, 07:30:25 am by Moose »

Offline DrRansom

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 512
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #242 on: April 12, 2018, 08:04:03 am »
Based upon the limitations of the Flight III Burke, a new cruise has to either be a Zumwalt or a LPD-17. Going with a Burke hull would be an expensive side-grade.

Doesn't the Zumwalt have something like 10x the available power of a Burke?

Offline NeilChapman

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 866
  • Interested 3rd party
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #243 on: April 12, 2018, 02:17:48 pm »
The Zumwalt is the obvious choice.  The other decision is if they do a "Flight II" variant of the cruiser that is nuclear powered.  There will be a need for a lot of juice with DEWs, large radars, and railguns, and the demand will only increase over time.  Also, if you do a cruiser variant that helps out the 3 DDGs in the gun department as there would be more deployed guns making the ammo issue go away.  I'd consider taking the rear gun out though and replacing it with Northrop Grummans Modular Launch System VLS.

http://www.northropgrumman.com/Capabilities/SurfaceShipEjectLaunch/Documents/modular-launch-system.pdf

Would the Columbia-class reactor be feasible for this cruiser?  Don't know if it would have the same 40yr life span on a cruiser.



Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2164
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #244 on: April 12, 2018, 03:08:59 pm »
The Zumwalt is the obvious choice.  The other decision is if they do a "Flight II" variant of the cruiser that is nuclear powered.  There will be a need for a lot of juice with DEWs, large radars, and railguns, and the demand will only increase over time.  Also, if you do a cruiser variant that helps out the 3 DDGs in the gun department as there would be more deployed guns making the ammo issue go away.  I'd consider taking the rear gun out though and replacing it with Northrop Grummans Modular Launch System VLS.

http://www.northropgrumman.com/Capabilities/SurfaceShipEjectLaunch/Documents/modular-launch-system.pdf

Would the Columbia-class reactor be feasible for this cruiser?  Don't know if it would have the same 40yr life span on a cruiser.

The speculation I've seen for S1B is that it has higher MWt than Ohio but that's still probably (given typical conversion) no more than 70 MWe.
A1B is in the 150 MWe range.
HHI's BMD ship with 3x30 foot array has 84 MWe installed.

http://www.huntingtoningalls.com/ballistic-missile-defense-ship/3-fixed-arrays-30/

So the argument goes that the Navy would likely be required to develop an intermediate reactor.
« Last Edit: April 12, 2018, 04:04:51 pm by marauder2048 »

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8524
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #245 on: April 16, 2018, 06:30:56 am »
https://www.themaven.net/warriormaven/sea/navy-calls-for-urgently-fast-tracked-new-weapons-counter-russia-china-FJEJQ2LflEi0Y_zrK4ej6g/

Quote
Vice Chief of Naval Operations calls for "urgently" fast-tracked weapons to counter Russia & China

The Vice Chief of Naval Operations told the force there needs to be an intense and concentrated effort to speed up weapons and technology acquisition for the specific purpose of countering massive military gains by both Russia and China.

“We need to scale up in a wildly unpredictable environment, as we see the reemergence of true existential threats. We face a new era of great power competition,” Vice Adm. Bill Moran, Vice Chief of Naval Operations, told an audience at the annual Navy League Sea Air Space Symposium.
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline NeilChapman

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 866
  • Interested 3rd party
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #246 on: April 16, 2018, 06:34:59 am »
https://www.themaven.net/warriormaven/sea/navy-calls-for-urgently-fast-tracked-new-weapons-counter-russia-china-FJEJQ2LflEi0Y_zrK4ej6g/

Quote
Vice Chief of Naval Operations calls for "urgently" fast-tracked weapons to counter Russia & China

The Vice Chief of Naval Operations told the force there needs to be an intense and concentrated effort to speed up weapons and technology acquisition for the specific purpose of countering massive military gains by both Russia and China.

“We need to scale up in a wildly unpredictable environment, as we see the reemergence of true existential threats. We face a new era of great power competition,” Vice Adm. Bill Moran, Vice Chief of Naval Operations, told an audience at the annual Navy League Sea Air Space Symposium.

+1 

Don't ever want to be in a fair fight.



Offline NeilChapman

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 866
  • Interested 3rd party
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #247 on: April 16, 2018, 06:36:22 am »
https://www.themaven.net/warriormaven/sea/navy-calls-for-urgently-fast-tracked-new-weapons-counter-russia-china-FJEJQ2LflEi0Y_zrK4ej6g/

Quote
Vice Chief of Naval Operations calls for "urgently" fast-tracked weapons to counter Russia & China

The Vice Chief of Naval Operations told the force there needs to be an intense and concentrated effort to speed up weapons and technology acquisition for the specific purpose of countering massive military gains by both Russia and China.

“We need to scale up in a wildly unpredictable environment, as we see the reemergence of true existential threats. We face a new era of great power competition,” Vice Adm. Bill Moran, Vice Chief of Naval Operations, told an audience at the annual Navy League Sea Air Space Symposium.


+1 

Don't ever want to be in a fair fight.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8524
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #248 on: April 18, 2018, 06:09:23 am »
https://news.usni.org/2018/04/17/report-congress-u-s-navy-next-generation-frigate-ffgx-program

Quote
The Navy in 2017 initiated a new program, called the FFG(X) program, to build a class of 20
guided-missile frigates (FFGs). The Navy wants to procure the first FFG(X) in FY2020, the
second in FY2021, and the remaining 18 at a rate of two per year in FY2022-FY2030. The
Navy’s proposed FY2019 budget requests $134.8 million in research and development funding
for the program.

Although the Navy has not yet determined the design of the FFG(X), given the capabilities that
the Navy’s wants the FFG(X) to have, the ship will likely be larger in terms of displacement,
more heavily armed, and more expensive to procure than the Navy’s Littoral Combat Ships
(LCSs). The Navy envisages developing no new technologies or systems for the FFG(X)—the
ship is to use systems and technologies that already exist or are already being developed for use
in other programs.

The Navy’s desire to procure the first FFG(X) in FY2020 does not allow enough time to develop
a completely new design (i.e., a clean-sheet design) for the FFG(X). Consequently, the Navy
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline NeilChapman

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 866
  • Interested 3rd party
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #249 on: April 18, 2018, 01:13:15 pm »
https://news.usni.org/2018/04/17/report-congress-u-s-navy-next-generation-frigate-ffgx-program

Quote
The Navy in 2017 initiated a new program, called the FFG(X) program, to build a class of 20
guided-missile frigates (FFGs). The Navy wants to procure the first FFG(X) in FY2020, the
second in FY2021, and the remaining 18 at a rate of two per year in FY2022-FY2030. The
Navy’s proposed FY2019 budget requests $134.8 million in research and development funding
for the program.

Although the Navy has not yet determined the design of the FFG(X), given the capabilities that
the Navy’s wants the FFG(X) to have, the ship will likely be larger in terms of displacement,
more heavily armed, and more expensive to procure than the Navy’s Littoral Combat Ships
(LCSs). The Navy envisages developing no new technologies or systems for the FFG(X)—the
ship is to use systems and technologies that already exist or are already being developed for use
in other programs.

The Navy’s desire to procure the first FFG(X) in FY2020 does not allow enough time to develop
a completely new design (i.e., a clean-sheet design) for the FFG(X). Consequently, the Navy


Hope there's room for TERN!



Offline Moose

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 914
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #250 on: April 18, 2018, 04:23:05 pm »
TERN might get the axe, sadly. Someone was recently talking about combining it  with another program to keep it from going away entirely.

Offline NeilChapman

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 866
  • Interested 3rd party
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #251 on: April 18, 2018, 05:09:10 pm »
TERN might get the axe, sadly. Someone was recently talking about combining it  with another program to keep it from going away entirely.


Before they do the ground and at-sea fight tests?

Offline Mark S.

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 72
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #252 on: April 18, 2018, 07:09:44 pm »
Would there be anything to be gained by using the hull design of the Virginia class CGN's with conventional power?  They seem to have a displacement of 1,000 tons more than the current cruisers.


Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2935
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #253 on: April 18, 2018, 07:23:23 pm »
Would there be anything to be gained by using the hull design of the Virginia class CGN's with conventional power?  They seem to have a displacement of 1,000 tons more than the current cruisers.

A 1,000-ton gain on the current cruisers is nowhere close to meeting the power generation and habitability needs of a future-proofed next-generation cruiser.  Think more like 16,000 tons displacement, at a rough estimate.  This is why DDG-1000 and LPD-17 are the only realistic extant hullforms for the job.


Offline Colonial-Marine

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 586
  • Fighting the UAV mafia.
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #254 on: April 18, 2018, 07:58:41 pm »
Personally I think we'd do better with a new hull design versus one "off the shelf". Starting with the CGN-38 hull design as a basis and expanding upon it doesn't seem like the worst choice in the world.


"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedy."

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11263
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #255 on: April 18, 2018, 08:47:06 pm »
Personally I think we'd do better with a new hull design versus one "off the shelf". Starting with the CGN-38 hull design as a basis and expanding upon it doesn't seem like the worst choice in the world.

You say new is better than "off the shelf" and then reach back 40 years for you design? Really?
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Colonial-Marine

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 586
  • Fighting the UAV mafia.
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #256 on: April 18, 2018, 08:52:26 pm »
To reiterate I don't mean anything more than the starting with that hull shape and dimensions as a basis. I suppose it shouldn't really be necessary but it's an idea of what to aim for.
"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedy."

Offline Moose

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 914
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #257 on: April 18, 2018, 10:36:05 pm »
TERN might get the axe, sadly. Someone was recently talking about combining it  with another program to keep it from going away entirely.


Before they do the ground and at-sea fight tests?
No, I think the big Omnibus boost probably gets it through to test flights. Whether it lives to be purchased in quantity seems to be less certain.

Offline Moose

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 914
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #258 on: April 18, 2018, 10:55:38 pm »
To reiterate I don't mean anything more than the starting with that hull shape and dimensions as a basis. I suppose it shouldn't really be necessary but it's an idea of what to aim for.
I appreciate what you're saying. However I don't believe that's the sort of baseline the Navy has in mind. Aside from the recent LPD-based concepts, all Navy cruiser designs built and unbuilt for the last few decades are stretched or scaled-up Destroyers. Getting the Navy back into a CGN/strike cruiser head space where they're pursuing a Cruiser that is dramatically distinct from the DDGs is not in the cards, it would seem.

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2164
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #259 on: April 19, 2018, 12:59:55 am »
80+ MWe seems to be the recurring theme in the Navy's latest presentations as well.
With assumptions about combat system requirements (> 30 MWe), the top speed
requirements and motive power available would, I suppose, drive a lot of the hull form considerations.

(from Markle's "IPES - Harnessing Total Ship Energy & Power" from SNA 2018)

« Last Edit: April 19, 2018, 01:01:39 am by marauder2048 »

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11263
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #260 on: April 19, 2018, 06:35:30 am »
all Navy cruiser designs built and unbuilt for the last few decades are stretched or scaled-up Destroyers.

It's not that black and white.  With the CG-47 class they originally looked at using the cruiser hull of the Virginias.  When that was too expensive they thought, "hey, we have this Spruance hull that might work" and that was that even though it was not ideal.  With the Zumwalt hull it was planned in from the beginning to use it as the CG-47 replacement so it's not a matter of trying to "make do" but was taken into account from the start.  Big difference.  This is also why the Zumwalt hull is the obvious choice to replace the CG-47.  It's got the space, the power, etc.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2935
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #261 on: April 19, 2018, 07:25:00 am »
To reiterate I don't mean anything more than the starting with that hull shape and dimensions as a basis. I suppose it shouldn't really be necessary but it's an idea of what to aim for.
I appreciate what you're saying. However I don't believe that's the sort of baseline the Navy has in mind. Aside from the recent LPD-based concepts, all Navy cruiser designs built and unbuilt for the last few decades are stretched or scaled-up Destroyers. Getting the Navy back into a CGN/strike cruiser head space where they're pursuing a Cruiser that is dramatically distinct from the DDGs is not in the cards, it would seem.

It would be interesting to see them look into some of the large combatant concepts that were studied under the SC21 COEA.  But those never got past concept studies and basic arrangements, so they wouldn't fit the desire to use an actual tested and validated hullform. 


Offline NeilChapman

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 866
  • Interested 3rd party
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #262 on: April 19, 2018, 05:53:44 pm »
To reiterate I don't mean anything more than the starting with that hull shape and dimensions as a basis. I suppose it shouldn't really be necessary but it's an idea of what to aim for.
I appreciate what you're saying. However I don't believe that's the sort of baseline the Navy has in mind. Aside from the recent LPD-based concepts, all Navy cruiser designs built and unbuilt for the last few decades are stretched or scaled-up Destroyers. Getting the Navy back into a CGN/strike cruiser head space where they're pursuing a Cruiser that is dramatically distinct from the DDGs is not in the cards, it would seem.

It would be interesting to see them look into some of the large combatant concepts that were studied under the SC21 COEA.  But those never got past concept studies and basic arrangements, so they wouldn't fit the desire to use an actual tested and validated hullform.

It would be interesting, perhaps, but expensive. 

The Navy seems to be stuck.  DDG-1000 hull is too small, and the San-Antonio seems seems too slow. 

Sounds like cruiser will be primarily BMD and air defense.  Burke is a GMC Terrain when you really need a F550.  It will never be big enough.  Flight III will not be big enough.  DDG-1000 will not be big enough.

The cruiser will need to be really big. 

1.  Everything on this cruiser will use LOTS of power.  Propulsion will probably be electric.  Radar will be enormous.  They'll want it to last 40-50 years so the growth margin will need to be adequate.  They'll also want plenty of juice for big lasers.  It just makes sense that they'll look to one of the Ford-class reactors as a power plant, especially since there is an active production line.  You know the government line, "another one will make all of them cheaper." So how about another 20.

2.  They'll want lots of weapons on the beast and room for helicopters   They'll also want room to add new systems as they become available.  The result will be a need for enough deck space and magazines to handle all the initial systems and room for whatever comes next. 

3.  Having a separate magazine ship won't be necessary and will be expensive. It won't have the weapons systems required to adequately protect itself, and, if not nuclear powered it will be a logistics nightmare to drag it around.  If the cruiser is big enough the magazine will be deep.  It will get deeper as lasers and rail guns become more effective.  The need for a magazine ship will diminish over the life of the ship.  And it's likely that these cruisers will be forward deployed and moving between task forces so you don't want two ships when one will do the job.  Besides, why build one cruiser when you can build two for twice the price?

Lastly, I'm not sure that these cruisers need to "keep up" with the Carrier Task Force.  It's more likely that the Carrier Task Force will be going to where the cruiser is located.  They can be forward deployed in relevant locations such as Guam, Japan, Korea, Singapore, Australia, Diego Garcia, Crete or where ever is appropriate.  I don't know if 25 knots isn't fast enough.  It passes the 80% rule.  It's fast enough for ARG's and any major event will likely incorporate carriers and LHA's.

Build the ship with existing tech.  Integration as the only risk.  A wish list...
 
San-Antonio hull
Single A1B and as many systems as possible from Ford
Survivability Level III instead of Level II of San-Antonio class
Lose all the amphib equipment and spaces
Cobra King radar system
VLS with a boatload of cells
Acoustic equipment
Aviation component
Appropriate AA systems & CIWS
Room for rail gun and lasers

If Ticonderoga-class were a billion a boat in the 90's then this rig, 30 years later with over twice the capacity, would be a bargain at $4-5B.




Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11263
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #263 on: April 20, 2018, 04:42:25 am »
To reiterate I don't mean anything more than the starting with that hull shape and dimensions as a basis. I suppose it shouldn't really be necessary but it's an idea of what to aim for.
I appreciate what you're saying. However I don't believe that's the sort of baseline the Navy has in mind. Aside from the recent LPD-based concepts, all Navy cruiser designs built and unbuilt for the last few decades are stretched or scaled-up Destroyers. Getting the Navy back into a CGN/strike cruiser head space where they're pursuing a Cruiser that is dramatically distinct from the DDGs is not in the cards, it would seem.

It would be interesting to see them look into some of the large combatant concepts that were studied under the SC21 COEA.  But those never got past concept studies and basic arrangements, so they wouldn't fit the desire to use an actual tested and validated hullform.

It would be interesting, perhaps, but expensive. 

The Navy seems to be stuck.  DDG-1000 hull is too small, and the San-Antonio seems seems too slow. 

Sounds like cruiser will be primarily BMD and air defense.  Burke is a GMC Terrain when you really need a F550.  It will never be big enough.  Flight III will not be big enough.  DDG-1000 will not be big enough.

The cruiser will need to be really big. 

1.  Everything on this cruiser will use LOTS of power.  Propulsion will probably be electric.  Radar will be enormous.  They'll want it to last 40-50 years so the growth margin will need to be adequate.  They'll also want plenty of juice for big lasers.  It just makes sense that they'll look to one of the Ford-class reactors as a power plant, especially since there is an active production line.  You know the government line, "another one will make all of them cheaper." So how about another 20.

2.  They'll want lots of weapons on the beast and room for helicopters   They'll also want room to add new systems as they become available.  The result will be a need for enough deck space and magazines to handle all the initial systems and room for whatever comes next. 

3.  Having a separate magazine ship won't be necessary and will be expensive. It won't have the weapons systems required to adequately protect itself, and, if not nuclear powered it will be a logistics nightmare to drag it around.  If the cruiser is big enough the magazine will be deep.  It will get deeper as lasers and rail guns become more effective.  The need for a magazine ship will diminish over the life of the ship.  And it's likely that these cruisers will be forward deployed and moving between task forces so you don't want two ships when one will do the job.  Besides, why build one cruiser when you can build two for twice the price?

Lastly, I'm not sure that these cruisers need to "keep up" with the Carrier Task Force.  It's more likely that the Carrier Task Force will be going to where the cruiser is located.  They can be forward deployed in relevant locations such as Guam, Japan, Korea, Singapore, Australia, Diego Garcia, Crete or where ever is appropriate.  I don't know if 25 knots isn't fast enough.  It passes the 80% rule.  It's fast enough for ARG's and any major event will likely incorporate carriers and LHA's.

Build the ship with existing tech.  Integration as the only risk.  A wish list...
 
San-Antonio hull
Single A1B and as many systems as possible from Ford
Survivability Level III instead of Level II of San-Antonio class
Lose all the amphib equipment and spaces
Cobra King radar system
VLS with a boatload of cells
Acoustic equipment
Aviation component
Appropriate AA systems & CIWS
Room for rail gun and lasers

If Ticonderoga-class were a billion a boat in the 90's then this rig, 30 years later with over twice the capacity, would be a bargain at $4-5B.

You're talking Kirov-class sized or bigger which will be too expensive.  You need to be able to buy 20-30 not 4 or 5.  I'd go with a "Flight I" CG-X based on the Zumwalt, using conventional propulsion and then look at nuclear power for the "Flight II". 
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline NeilChapman

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 866
  • Interested 3rd party
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #264 on: April 20, 2018, 06:55:58 am »

You're talking Kirov-class sized or bigger which will be too expensive.  You need to be able to buy 20-30 not 4 or 5.  I'd go with a "Flight I" CG-X based on the Zumwalt, using conventional propulsion and then look at nuclear power for the "Flight II".

Size and power or speed.  I just don't think that speed needs to get weighted that heavily in the decision making process.  Size and power are available today.  The program can start today.  It's much easier and quicker to make everything fit when your space constraints are removed. 

You agree that Zumwalt is not big enough.  Why bother?  It seems a waste of time, effort and training.  The lost opportunity cost seems very high as well.  If the US didn't know how to integrate another nuclear powered vessel and the ramp up time was necessary I might agree with you but that's not the case. 

Certainly modifying the San-Antonio as Surv. Level III wouldn't be cheap.  It's a big boat.  But that's the price of admission for any cruiser and if there was a more favorable atmosphere for making a case for a proper BMD ship, now's the time.  There is an understanding in Congress for ballistic missile defense.  Defending the US is all well and good but the US, allied fleets and territories need defending as well.  And what's better for that than a great, mobile battery.  It's as important to the fleet as B-21 is to air supremacy.  Forward deployed BMD ships with the radar and magazine depth are needed now. 

The only piece that's not in active production would be the radar.  Spinning up that line shouldn't be too difficult as it's quite new.  MYP of 5 ships would likely save a bit as well. The only difficulty could be the Navy itself.  They have been selling Burke as good enough for years.  Now they have to explain the modification of the threat and why Burke needs augmentation.  They radar probably isn't designed for integration into theater defense either.  That would probably be a flight II program.

Your analysis seems to be based on cost estimates alone.  I'd ask the Navy and HII to tell me how they could get the number to $3-4B since HII is the only game in town for this ship.  Once the line is spun up and the workforce get's trained they will find other saving's as well.

Expensive is relative when the value can be shown.



Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2935
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #265 on: April 20, 2018, 07:24:28 am »
I'm not convinced the Zumwalt isn't big enough.  Or more specifically, a restored original-sized Zumwalt.  That was ~16,000 tons, significantly longer than the current design, and had 128 oversized Mk 57 VLS just in the peripheral launchers.  Removing the AGS would give you room for one gun (initially a 5-inch powder gun, later possibly a railgun if the technology matures sufficiently) and still give you room for another large block of VLS -- at least 64 Mk41-size cells, or possibly a smaller number of much larger cells for future BMD solutions.  With strike weapons offlaoded to the destroyers, that's more than enough magazine depth.

Power isn't a problem -- DDG-1000 already has nearly 80 MW available, and the MT30 turbines could grow significantly if needed.  Rolls Royce says there is a growth path from MT30 to a 50-MW MT50, if you really need >100MW. 

The design has volume enough for future BMD radar (especially if they extend the superstructure when they restretch the hull).  Unless you insist on Sea-based X-Band or equivalent on a combatant hull, which feels like overkill in a networked warfighting environment.




Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11263
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #266 on: April 20, 2018, 07:37:03 am »
I'm not convinced the Zumwalt isn't big enough.  Or more specifically, a restored original-sized Zumwalt.  That was ~16,000 tons, significantly longer than the current design, and had 128 oversized Mk 57 VLS just in the peripheral launchers. 

Any idea how much longer the cruiser was supposed to be?  I'm of the opinion the Zumwalt is the obvious route for a CG-47 replacement.
« Last Edit: April 20, 2018, 08:00:23 am by sferrin »
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2935
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #267 on: April 20, 2018, 08:31:39 am »
I'm not convinced the Zumwalt isn't big enough.  Or more specifically, a restored original-sized Zumwalt.  That was ~16,000 tons, significantly longer than the current design, and had 128 oversized Mk 57 VLS just in the peripheral launchers. 

Any idea how much longer the cruiser was supposed to be?  I'm of the opinion the Zumwalt is the obvious route for a CG-47 replacement.

I can't remember how much longer the original DD-21 was -- maybe 80 feet more?

I don't think anyone had actually worked out how much bigger the cruiser might be.  I suspect the initial thinking was about the same as the full-size DD.  Same basic relationship as the Tico and Spruance -- the hulls are the same length but the Tico rides lower and so has higher displacement.  But remember that a chunk of the DD-21's displacement is ballast to maintain waterline for RCS. Until you run out of ballast weight, adding equipment doesn't necessarily change the overall displacement.

Now, the one thing that really has changed since the old CG-21/G(X) is radar size.  Back then, no one really imagined the monster BMD radars that are being discussed these days. 

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2164
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #268 on: April 20, 2018, 09:31:18 am »
I think the largest radar that BIW looked at mounting on DDG-1000 was 21 feet which
probably falls slightly short of SPY+30dB which was previously the objective requirement
for the high-end threat environment.

Offline Moose

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 914
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #269 on: April 20, 2018, 10:19:19 am »
I think the largest radar that BIW looked at mounting on DDG-1000 was 21 feet which
probably falls slightly short of SPY+30dB which was previously the objective requirement
for the high-end threat environment.
The objective CG(X) AMDR array size was 22ft and objective sensitivity was 30 decibels better than SPY-1 (usually shorthanded as SPY+30). The Hull/Radar study, however, only considered a maximum of 14-foot SPY+15 AMDR arrays on a largely unchanged DDG-1000 or somewhat modified DDG-51. Bath Iron Works has a design for a deckhouse which can accommodate up to 21ft arrays, but the Navy says they haven't considered it. On the other hand, the 2007 CG(X) AoA studied options and apparently credited some version of DDG-1000 being able to accommodate a radar with a sensitivity SPY+25. Raytheon gives their scaling information based on the number of RMA blocks the radar will use. 9 RMAs (the EASR size) is SPY+0 in about a 6'x6' square, 37 RMAs (SPY-6A) is SPY+15 in a 14-foot array, and 69 RMAs would by SPY+25 in an about 18-foot array.

I'm not convinced the Zumwalt isn't big enough.  Or more specifically, a restored original-sized Zumwalt.  That was ~16,000 tons, significantly longer than the current design, and had 128 oversized Mk 57 VLS just in the peripheral launchers. 

Any idea how much longer the cruiser was supposed to be?  I'm of the opinion the Zumwalt is the obvious route for a CG-47 replacement.

I can't remember how much longer the original DD-21 was -- maybe 80 feet more?

I don't think anyone had actually worked out how much bigger the cruiser might be.  I suspect the initial thinking was about the same as the full-size DD.  Same basic relationship as the Tico and Spruance -- the hulls are the same length but the Tico rides lower and so has higher displacement.  But remember that a chunk of the DD-21's displacement is ballast to maintain waterline for RCS. Until you run out of ballast weight, adding equipment doesn't necessarily change the overall displacement.

Now, the one thing that really has changed since the old CG-21/G(X) is radar size.  Back then, no one really imagined the monster BMD radars that are being discussed these days. 
I don't believe there were firm numbers for how long/wide DD-21 would be, only that it has a higher target displacement than the one DD(X) aimed for. I believe the objective for the CG-21 was to use the same hull with same dimensions, but that was pretty notional and consideration was still being given to a non-tumblehome hull for the Cruiser.

Offline jsport

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1182
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #270 on: April 20, 2018, 12:10:43 pm »
Cruisers would seem to be the only sensible ship to focus on at this time. As the future is now.  The energy requirements demand a ship large enough for a reactor to support:
-4x large BMD AESAs
-LF DEW
-RF DEW
-eventually hopefully large bore guns (of some type possibly needing electric power)
-even PBWs (necessary for next gen BMD)
-some type surface and subsurface Ship EM armor
-large number of VLS (don't need electric power but do need a large ship)
 Once a CG-21/G(X) like boat is perfected then small ships may or may not find a role as energy based systems are miniaturized. Distributed Lethality has blinded folks to what Seapower needs to even survive let alone be strategically useful.  Some day when these systems can be miniaturized enough and still have strategic capability, Distributed Lethality can return  to the discussion.


Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11263
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #271 on: April 20, 2018, 01:35:13 pm »

You're talking Kirov-class sized or bigger which will be too expensive.  You need to be able to buy 20-30 not 4 or 5.  I'd go with a "Flight I" CG-X based on the Zumwalt, using conventional propulsion and then look at nuclear power for the "Flight II".

Size and power or speed.  I just don't think that speed needs to get weighted that heavily in the decision making process.  Size and power are available today.  The program can start today.  It's much easier and quicker to make everything fit when your space constraints are removed. 

Exactly.  That's why I think the Zumwalt is the obvious choice.  It's got the power, the speed, and is available today.

You agree that Zumwalt is not big enough. 

I did not say that.  Why would I say the Zumwalt isn't big enough only to say "the obvious choice is the Zumwalt"?


Why bother?  It seems a waste of time, effort and training.  The lost opportunity cost seems very high as well.  If the US didn't know how to integrate another nuclear powered vessel and the ramp up time was necessary I might agree with you but that's not the case. 

Not sure I follow what you're saying.

Your analysis seems to be based on cost estimates alone.

No.  I said something like what was described would be as large or larger than the Kirov class and that would be extremely expensive, nothing more.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline NeilChapman

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 866
  • Interested 3rd party
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #272 on: April 20, 2018, 03:17:46 pm »

You're talking Kirov-class sized or bigger which will be too expensive.  You need to be able to buy 20-30 not 4 or 5.  I'd go with a "Flight I" CG-X based on the Zumwalt, using conventional propulsion and then look at nuclear power for the "Flight II".

Size and power or speed.  I just don't think that speed needs to get weighted that heavily in the decision making process.  Size and power are available today.  The program can start today.  It's much easier and quicker to make everything fit when your space constraints are removed. 

Exactly.  That's why I think the Zumwalt is the obvious choice.  It's got the power, the speed, and is available today.


It may or may not have the power for today.  It certainly doesn't have the power for a 35-50 yr ship.  The US is building Ford class with a 100% margin for power.  I don't see 100% margin for power with 'today's Zumwalt.

You agree that Zumwalt is not big enough. 

I did not say that.  Why would I say the Zumwalt isn't big enough only to say "the obvious choice is the Zumwalt"?


You're right, you didn't.  You said 'I'd go with a "Flight I" CG-X based on the Zumwalt, using conventional propulsion and then look at nuclear power for the "Flight II"' and I equated it with 'not big enough'.  My mistake. 

I'm not convinced Zumwalt can carry a Ford class reactor.  So now one has to look at either another existing reactor that has enough power.  Is there one?  If not, then you have to develop a new reactor or make a bigger Zumwalt. 

Or - you can use an existing hull with an existing reactor.

Think of it as building a bridge over a freeway.  You may build the freeway with two lanes in each direction but are you going to build the bridge spans to only support two lanes in each direction?  No.  You're going to build the bridge spans to support four lanes in each direction. 


Why bother?  It seems a waste of time, effort and training.  The lost opportunity cost seems very high as well.  If the US didn't know how to integrate another nuclear powered vessel and the ramp up time was necessary I might agree with you but that's not the case. 

Not sure I follow what you're saying.


The lost opportunity cost is dealing with two solutions, a conventionally powered Zumwalt and a nuclear powered Zumwalt.  It's a waste of time, effort and training.

Ship design - X2
Ship production systems - X2
Ship building - X2
Training of the ship builders - X2

Efficiencies are driven by repetition.  Look at the price management and schedule reduction with Virginia class.  Want to drive the cost down on a cruiser?  Build the same one over and over for 10 years.  Then build it over and over for another 10 years.  The extra production may assist in Ford cost management as well.

Your analysis seems to be based on cost estimates alone.

No.  I said something like what was described would be as large or larger than the Kirov class and that would be extremely expensive, nothing more.

Ok.  I guess I got that idea since price was the only negative you proposed.

I've got nothing against Zumwalt.  I'm just not convinced it has the power or size to be a 40-50 year solution as a BMD ship.  You don't either since you propose a nuclear powered "flight ii".  You can't retrofit nuclear propulsion into hulls.  You can retrofit just about anything else in a hull. 

Perhaps I'm missing the obvious but I don't see the requirement for 30+ knots.  It would be nice but it's not necessary.  And speed is the only advantage I see with the Zumwalt hull.  All the other advantages I see with a Level 3 San Antonio.








Offline NeilChapman

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 866
  • Interested 3rd party
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #273 on: April 20, 2018, 03:44:14 pm »

...

The design has volume enough for future BMD radar (especially if they extend the superstructure when they restretch the hull).  Unless you insist on Sea-based X-Band or equivalent on a combatant hull, which feels like overkill in a networked warfighting environment.

I like overkill.  Nothing like fighting an unfair fight. 

Is the Navy still expecting to be fighting in a 100% networked environment?  I don't know if I'd want to count on it.  Also, a big radar capability may provide a competitive advantage in a networked environment.  Still a pretty good view of what's in the air a good ways out.

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2935
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #274 on: April 20, 2018, 07:56:29 pm »
I went back and looked.  Combat Fleets 15th Edition (2007) mentions the original DD 21 design as being 15,400 tons and 216 meters long.  The same numbers are in Friedman's revised US Destroyers, which means it was from somewhere fairly o