Register here

Author Topic: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook  (Read 46744 times)

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2766
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #345 on: August 29, 2018, 09:32:32 am »
The nonsense over the name and hedging about hedging about* size/capability are possibly the most depressing signs that the Navy has learned absolutely none of the important lessons from the early LCS program.

*not a typo

The fact that they seem to have done absolutely no actual requirements scrub here is pretty terrifying.  "We'll just recycle our last CDD, add a bunch more requirements, and hope we can afford to buy three of the resulting ships." 

Edit: And it sounds like they've arrived at basically the same ideas as the SC-21 COEA from 1997.  Twenty years wasted.
« Last Edit: August 29, 2018, 09:34:49 am by TomS »

Offline Moose

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 840
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #346 on: August 29, 2018, 02:45:43 pm »
Seems like an admission that the Flight III Burke is a train wreck in progress.  "We need the exact same combat system in a different hull," means the Burke hull is too small to actually work with SPY-6/Baseline 10.  But how many Flight IIIs are we going to build anyway?
I'm not enthusiastic about defending any of the decisions they've made in the last, oh, 18 years. But I'd stop short of "train wreck" with Flight III. The thing will sail, and it will fight, it just won't have much if any growth margin and has been de-scoped from the vision they sold the DoD on when they argued for going this route.

Adding to the frustration is the lac of transparency and oversight. The Navy is being as opaque with this process as it can, and Congress is sitting on its thumbs rather than demand answers.

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2766
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #347 on: August 29, 2018, 03:06:10 pm »
I guess it's just the lost potential that annoys me.  We could have done a new Zumwalt-type hull and mechanical platform with AEGIS systems 20 years ago and had plenty of room for upgrades.

Offline Colonial-Marine

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 556
  • Fighting the UAV mafia.
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #348 on: August 29, 2018, 08:14:05 pm »
The glory days when we were supposed to have 32 new DD(X)s with a whole new generation of missiles plus long range guns with actual ammunition?
"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedy."

Offline NeilChapman

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 854
  • Interested 3rd party
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #349 on: August 29, 2018, 11:04:56 pm »
https://news.usni.org/2018/08/28/navys-next-large-surface-combatant-will-draw-ddg-51-ddg-1000-dont-call-destroyer

Quote
THE PENTAGON – The Navy will buy the first of its Future Surface Combatants in 2023 – a large warship that will be built to support the Arleigh Burke Flight III combat system and will pull elements from the Arleigh Burke-class (DDG-51) and Zumwalt-class (DDG-1000) destroyer designs.

The combatant – not dubbed a cruiser, and potentially not dubbed a destroyer either – will be bigger and more expensive than the Arleigh Burke Flight III design and will have more room to grow into for decades to come, the director of surface warfare (OPNAV N96) told USNI News today.

Future Surface Combatant refers to a family of systems that includes a large combatant akin to a destroyer, a small combatant like the Littoral Combat Ship or the upcoming frigate program, a large unmanned surface vessel and a medium USV, along with an integrated combat system that will be the common thread linking all the platforms. Navy leadership just recently signed an initial capabilities document for the family of systems, after an effort that began in late 2017 to define what the surface force as a whole would be required to do in the future and therefore how each of the four future platforms could contribute to that overall mission requirement.

Four designs.

1.  New Large Surface Combatant
2.  Small Surface Combatant - Likely Flight III?
3.  Large USV - Will this launch UAV's?
4.  Small USV

For Large Surface Combatant...

If BMD is not a requirement and large radar size is not required by integrating space based sensors then what size ship is required? 
Perhaps this would make a conventionally powered Zumwalt hull more attractive?
Would there still be any good case to be made for a nuclear powered ship?
Is it possible to add sections to Zumwalt to increase it's length or is this a total redesign?

What is the status of the IPS technology?  Zumwalt class seem to have issues.  Are these related to immature IPS design? 





Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2766
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #350 on: August 30, 2018, 07:30:35 am »
Four designs.

1.  New Large Surface Combatant
2.  Small Surface Combatant - Likely Flight III?
3.  Large USV - Will this launch UAV's?
4.  Small USV

For Large Surface Combatant...

If BMD is not a requirement and large radar size is not required by integrating space based sensors then what size ship is required? 
Perhaps this would make a conventionally powered Zumwalt hull more attractive?
Would there still be any good case to be made for a nuclear powered ship?
Is it possible to add sections to Zumwalt to increase it's length or is this a total redesign?

What is the status of the IPS technology?  Zumwalt class seem to have issues.  Are these related to immature IPS design?

The small combatant is not the Flight III Arleigh Burke, it's an LCS/FFG(X) follow-on.  Realistically, it will likely be FFG(X) Flight II.

I don't think we've seen much of anything about what the large unmanned (or optionally manned) ship will be.  I doubt it's a UAV carrier -- more likely something like Arsenal Ship v3.0. 

IPS for Zumwalt had a major setback when the big permanent magnet motors weren't quite ready for prime time, forcing the switch to induction motors.  Supposedly PMM is fixed now.  Other than that, I think the problem with the Zumwalts are mainly to do with being first of class and there being a grand total of 3.5 shipsets (the 0.5 being the land-based test facility) so not much installed base of support.

Offline Moose

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 840
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #351 on: August 30, 2018, 07:31:52 am »
More from USNI News.
Quote
The Navy’s next large surface combatant will have all the space, weight and power margins the sea service could need now and into the future to accommodate new weapons in development – but the director of surface warfare said the Navy would not accelerate weapons development to get them ready in time to outfit the new ships.
Quote
“We’re just excited that we think we do have something that is expandable, has SWaP-C (space, weight, power and cooling) for the future. I think all of us were kind of a little bit nervous about the DDG Flight III and whether we’ll have long-term ability to put future energy weapons on there, or the power that we need for directed energy, lasers, things like that,” he said.
Quote
Though he said the Navy would not make a specific effort to accelerate railgun to match its development with that of the new surface combatant, he said the large surface combatant would be waiting for the railgun whenever it matures and is ready for shipboard operations.

“When we design [the large surface combatant], we want to make sure we have the opportunity to put those in in a modular fashion. So if you’re going to put some whatever in the future, you’re going to put it in this space, and here’s the space and weight and power it should fit into. So we’re designing, we hope, for the future to build enough of that potential future power and weight to get what we think we need.”
There's more detail in the article, including late-2017 comments from ONR Railgun program boss Tom Boucher that says, in essence, the 32MJ railgun is at the point where the only significant issue remaining is the development of a mount that would be compatible with a combatant. But that sort of work isn't normally ONR's job, it's the acquisition community's. Which is why people were hoping/expecting it to be bundled into the new combatant. But now it looks like it will need to fight to get funding on its own until the Navy believes they can just drop it in on their new ship.

Offline jsport

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1042
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #352 on: August 30, 2018, 08:42:18 am »
Glade to see there is no specific effort to accelerate the EMRG.

Modularity is a start but still no discussion on whether the modularity can be filled w/ reuseable armed UAS essentially, possibly, defining the ship as primarily  a uas carrier.

Nor discussion on whether modularity can be filled w/ guns (potentially vertically firing) to provide sufficient "on shore early entry" support.

had omitted, but glade to hear, cooling is considered especially if one needs a nuke to make an EMRG practical ::)

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 10802
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #353 on: August 30, 2018, 09:07:55 am »
Glade to see there is no specific effort to accelerate the EMRG.

Modularity is a start but still no discussion on whether the modularity can be filled w/ reuseable armed UAS essentially, possibly, defining the ship as primarily  a uas carrier.

Nor discussion on whether modularity can be filled w/ guns (potentially vertically firing) to provide sufficient "on shore early entry" support.

had omitted, but glade to hear, cooling is considered especially if one needs a nuke to make an EMRG practical ::)

You probably want to take a hard look at nuclear power anyway for more powerful radars, DEWs, etc.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline NeilChapman

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 854
  • Interested 3rd party
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #354 on: August 30, 2018, 12:23:02 pm »
Glade to see there is no specific effort to accelerate the EMRG.

Modularity is a start but still no discussion on whether the modularity can be filled w/ reuseable armed UAS essentially, possibly, defining the ship as primarily  a uas carrier.

Nor discussion on whether modularity can be filled w/ guns (potentially vertically firing) to provide sufficient "on shore early entry" support.

had omitted, but glade to hear, cooling is considered especially if one needs a nuke to make an EMRG practical ::)

You probably want to take a hard look at nuclear power anyway for more powerful radars, DEWs, etc.

Navy made a case a while back that w/space-based sensors that the larger radar is not required.  It was one of the reasons, as well as cost, they gave to drop the CG{X}.  Has that requirement changed?  And without the BMD mission are we not just talking about a hull to meet future growth requirements for DDG-51 systems?

That certainly sounds like Zumwalt - or perhaps even a value-engineered Zumwalt like they did for LX(R)

(from https://fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL34179.pdf)
Quote
The Navy’s desire to cancel the CG(X) and instead procure Flight III DDG-51s apparently took
shape during 2009: at a June 16, 2009, hearing before the Seapower subcommittee of the Senate
Armed Services Committee, the Navy testified that it was conducting a study on destroyer
procurement options for FY2012 and beyond that was examining design options based on either
the DDG-51 or DDG-1000 hull form. A January 2009 memorandum from the Department of
Defense acquisition executive had called for such a study. In September and November 2009, it
was reported that the Navy’s study was examining how future requirements for AAW and BMD
operations might be met by a DDG-51 or DDG-1000 hull equipped with a new radar. On
December 7, 2009, it was reported that the Navy wanted to cancel its planned CG(X) cruiser and
instead procure an improved version of the DDG-51. In addition to being concerned about the
projected high cost and immature technologies of the CG(X), the Navy reportedly had
concluded that it does not need a surface combatant with a version of the AMDR as large and
capable as the one envisaged for the CG(X) to adequately perform projected AAW and BMD
missions, because the Navy will be able to augment data collected by surface combatant radars
with data collected by space-based sensors.
The Navy reportedly concluded that using data
collected by other sensors would permit projected AAW and BMD missions to be performed
adequately with a radar smaller enough to be fitted onto the DDG-51. Reports suggested that the
new smaller radar would be a scaled-down version of the AMDR originally intended for the
CG(X).
(emphasis mine)

But that decision was a decade ago.  Has the Navy determined space-based sensors are too vulnerable deciding to return this capability to ships using larger radar systems?  What are the definitive factors for space-based sensors that determine size/cost? Is it possible to value-build large quantities of these sensors to mitigate the risk?  With launch costs plummeting maybe the ROI model has changed. 

It's been reported that it's not been proven that Zumwalt can support one of the Ford-class reactors.  That would likely require a displacement of 20k T.  If "more power" (nuclear) is the deciding factor is a new or heavily modified design the only possible result? 



Offline DrRansom

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 495
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #355 on: August 30, 2018, 01:23:40 pm »
Quote
“It is the big question: what do you call the future large surface combatant? I don’t know. I don’t think you call it a cruiser. I don’t think you call it a destroyer. Maybe – I don’t know what it is,” Boxall said

Once again they're worrying about the exact name of ship. That nonsense always accompanies bad analysis.

Beyond the nonsense, there are some worrying signs - basically they're taking the Flight III capability as a baseline. But the Flight III capability was a compromise to fit the DDG-51 hull. So are they taking the Flight III capability as a good starting point from analysis or are they just doing it because?

One last note, the program's speed is the biggest hint that DDG-51 Flight III isn't working.

Offline jsport

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1042
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #356 on: August 31, 2018, 10:29:25 am »
“We’re just excited that we think we do have something that is expandable, has SWaP-C (space, weight, power and cooling) for the future."

..believe that a 'future large combatant' is the only good term to attempt to define what is needed. Still don't believe Frigate, Destroyer, Cruiser are anything but confusing in trying to define the size ship that is needed as standard combatant at least for now when SWAP-C are first and formost . Even the size ship specifically designated to protect carriers should be in question.

PS: still believe a larger radar than the currently defined SPY or AMDR is still needed on some ship, potentially a dedicated BMD ship.

Offline Foo Fighter

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 482
  • I came, I saw, I drank some tea (and had a bun).
Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Reply #357 on: September 06, 2018, 03:32:46 am »
It seems to me that most government (any nation with these assets) plans for having the eyes in space regardless of scenario.  The law of sod and logic disagrees.  Plan for the worst case scenario and hope it does not happen.  An old lesson learned and relearned frequently.  HMS Prince of Wales and HMS Repulse for instance?

Offline Grey Havoc

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 7733
  • The path not taken.
The sole imperative of a government, once instituted, is to survive.