Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook

bobbymike said:
https://www.nationaldefensemagazine...geKpbeTb92918IIZf-oh0X57gibum4v0o-sdo6o1AC-DE
Click to expand...
If only any of these promises could be believable. Defense budgets will continue to fall under these folks.. Sealift is so far behind we need a selective service just for manning Strategic Mobility. There have been realistic proposals of massive re-manning of Strategic Mobility. Likewise, a huge amount of resourcing is necessary for real Strategic Mobility. Such a massive but realistic, rethink (ships, airlift, rail systems, hardening, security, cybersecurity etc. ) is beyond even the realm of imagination in the current context of either party.

Using transports for arsenal planes.:( ..tankers during missions to limited degree maybe..
 
aonestudio said:
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2021/10/tkms-powerful-meko-a300-frigate/
Click to expand...
32 mk.41
36 MRSAM
2x21 RAM(forward one appears to be 12-cell one, though)
---(3 layers of missile-based air defense, +VL ASROC and Strike)
127/64 Vulcano + 2x35mm (apparently, millennium - i.e. CIWS)
---(layer of gun defense+ASuW+gunfire)
2x2 DEW(laser+microwave)
---(layer of direct energy weapons)
2x2 Seaspider
---(layer of anti-torpedo torpedoes)

+16 light ASCMs, +2x3 324mm TT, +full-size helicopter hangar, +2 11m boats/USVs, +upto 4 containers (incl. 533mm ultra long range DM2A4) or sea mines.

Even with its full sensor suite, it's fair to guess that its weapon loadout alone will be more expensive than the ship itself. But it's really glorious in its madness.
 
I don’t know what the displacement is, but the stability and living conditions must suck. When they say designed for the Baltic, I think they mean magazine, weapons, and DC have been enhanced by sacrificing endurance and blue water sea keeping. But for the environment the Poles operate in that’s probably a good fit. Ironically it reminds me of how stuffed to the gills Soviet surface combatants were (are), except the Soviets put no effort into damage control.
 
bobbymike said:
https://news.usni.org/2020/11/19/na...4LdFwtYj7WNqGHmQhypGcQZujaa2A0lv9f2DY962VpIQI
Click to expand...
Thanks for the article bobbymike

Yes, very interesting notion and concept.
The way I read it, although seemingly light on for troop numbers x75, this expeditionary unit appears to have some firepower in the way of LAV's (or equivalent).
Saying this, I'm sceptical of it's principle armament being a 30mm Bushmaster of sorts, whether manned or remote operated. I'm with you bobbymike in some form of multiple launch rocked system (not necessarily something as longe-ranged as HIMARS) or at least a 57mm gun mount to support opposed landings.

P.S. couldn't help notice the helo in the given Light Amphibious Warship Concept. Any idea of its type?

Regards
Pioneer
 

Attachments

  • USN_USMC Light Amphibious Warship study.jpg
    USN_USMC Light Amphibious Warship study.jpg
    54.9 KB · Views: 31
The A-300 makes the Type 31e look....lame.

But on the serious side, the A-300 has plenty of options, I doubt Poland would deck it out with all the goodies featured here, the cost would be massive for one thing, but its good to have placeholders to plug and play newer systems later on.
The design doesn't look too cramped, all the midships weapons look to be above deck so the only deck penetrating VLS is the Mk 41.
 
Pioneer said:
bobbymike said:
https://news.usni.org/2020/11/19/na...4LdFwtYj7WNqGHmQhypGcQZujaa2A0lv9f2DY962VpIQI
Click to expand...
Thanks for the article bobbymike

Yes, very interesting notion and concept.
The way I read it, although seemingly light on for troop numbers x75, this expeditionary unit appears to have some firepower in the way of LAV's (or equivalent).
Saying this, I'm sceptical of it's principle armament being a 30mm Bushmaster of sorts, whether manned or remote operated. I'm with you bobbymike in some form of multiple launch rocked system (not necessarily something as longe-ranged as HIMARS) or at least a 57mm gun mount to support opposed landings.

P.S. couldn't help notice the helo in the given Light Amphibious Warship Concept. Any idea of its type?

Regards
Pioneer
Click to expand...

The art is from Australian firm Sea Transport Solutions. I suspect the Helo is an MRH-90.

The premise behind the LAW is that it is not for opposed landings, but for moving marine units around to unoccupied islands.
 
I’d still want a SeaRAM and some SRBOC/Nukla. There’s no reason to be easy prey to the first MPA/helo/corvette that trips over you.
 
Josh_TN said:
I’d still want a SeaRAM and some SRBOC/Nukla. There’s no reason to be easy prey to the first MPA/helo/corvette that trips over you.
Click to expand...

OH, I agree in general. I'm really unimpressed by the rationales for LAW, and the proposed operating model makes very little sense. But at least they've recognized that it isn't suitable for Tarawa 2.0. Problem is, they don't seem to have another strategy that makes sense.
 
TomS said:
Pioneer said:
bobbymike said:
https://news.usni.org/2020/11/19/na...4LdFwtYj7WNqGHmQhypGcQZujaa2A0lv9f2DY962VpIQI
Click to expand...
Thanks for the article bobbymike

Yes, very interesting notion and concept.
The way I read it, although seemingly light on for troop numbers x75, this expeditionary unit appears to have some firepower in the way of LAV's (or equivalent).
Saying this, I'm sceptical of it's principle armament being a 30mm Bushmaster of sorts, whether manned or remote operated. I'm with you bobbymike in some form of multiple launch rocked system (not necessarily something as longe-ranged as HIMARS) or at least a 57mm gun mount to support opposed landings.

P.S. couldn't help notice the helo in the given Light Amphibious Warship Concept. Any idea of its type?

Regards
Pioneer
Click to expand...

The art is from Australian firm Sea Transport Solutions. I suspect the Helo is an MRH-90.

The premise behind the LAW is that it is not for opposed landings, but for moving marine units around to unoccupied islands.
Click to expand...
Thank you for the clarification TomS

Regards
Pioneer
 
TomS said:
Josh_TN said:
I’d still want a SeaRAM and some SRBOC/Nukla. There’s no reason to be easy prey to the first MPA/helo/corvette that trips over you.
Click to expand...

OH, I agree in general. I'm really unimpressed by the rationales for LAW, and the proposed operating model makes very little sense. But at least they've recognized that it isn't suitable for Tarawa 2.0. Problem is, they don't seem to have another strategy that makes sense.
Click to expand...

Actually one thing just occurred to me - the LAW might not really necessarily be designed for landing on 'little' islands. It occurs to me if a landing force was very anti surface oriented, with little thought to anything outside logistical supply, you could land a pretty effective battery of AShMs...on Taiwan. You wouldn't have to worry much about local security or even air defense; Taiwan's air defenses would be largely overwhelmed but still not uncontested for large vulnerable aircraft or slow moving UAVS. For instance, if you landed a standard HIMARS battery somewhere on the back side of Taiwan, as soon as you were ashore you could range about 2/3s of the island with ER GMLRS. You wouldn't even have to drive anywhere. That would be 6x9 rockets per salvo, so long as some other ISR source could provide you targets. You could probably cover almost every landing zone immediately and expose unloading ships to artillery fire. It would be exceedingly hard to defend against and the intercepting missiles would be likely far more expensive than the things they were shooting down. Add in PrSM and you can send 2x9 missiles against any landing ship loading along several hundred miles of Chinese coastline, as well as other targets inland as well. When PrSM gets its spiral upgrade to engage moving targets, you can add in an ability to to hit them in transit at a very high closing speed - it would be a very depressed trajectory to hit targets at PrSMs minimum range. NSM probably couldn't be fired over the back of the mountainous center of the island, but if you drove south you could probably quickly attain useful firing positions against a landing beach.

It might be that LAW is intended to land marine weapons for rapidly deterring the PRC in a lead up to an invasion or else reinforcing Taiwan once an invasion was already underway.
 
Much better to use SSNs to stop the Chinese Navy leaving its ports. They have negligible ASW.
Selling AEGIS to Taiwan would help screw up Chinese airstrikes.
If you have to fight a ground war on Taiwan you have already lost.
 
uk 75 said:
Much better to use SSNs to stop the Chinese Navy leaving its ports. They have negligible ASW.
Click to expand...
For now, they are literally working on making it better.

Like most of their newer class of ships are focus on it apperantly.

Give them another 10 years?

The SSNs will be needing to work far harder for their pay.
 
It's a hard game to get into when you don't have institutional knowledge. Would they even know what a Virginia sounds like? I'm guessing they focus on the active sonar game, at least with surface units. Even the USN seems to be leaning that way.
 
Josh_TN said:
It's a hard game to get into when you don't have institutional knowledge. Would they even know what a Virginia sounds like? I'm guessing they focus on the active sonar game, at least with surface units. Even the USN seems to be leaning that way.
Click to expand...
Towards banging away with active sonar instead of passive? Why would you think that?
 
sferrin said:
Josh_TN said:
It's a hard game to get into when you don't have institutional knowledge. Would they even know what a Virginia sounds like? I'm guessing they focus on the active sonar game, at least with surface units. Even the USN seems to be leaning that way.
Click to expand...
Towards banging away with active sonar instead of passive? Why would you think that?
Click to expand...

Not the nuke boats, the MPAs with the 'banger' buoys and the P-8s with the MAC setup. To a lesser extent the surface ships I think also were going in that direction; I think the new frigates and LSC were going to use a towed active source.
 
Josh_TN said:
sferrin said:
Josh_TN said:
It's a hard game to get into when you don't have institutional knowledge. Would they even know what a Virginia sounds like? I'm guessing they focus on the active sonar game, at least with surface units. Even the USN seems to be leaning that way.
Click to expand...
Towards banging away with active sonar instead of passive? Why would you think that?
Click to expand...

Not the nuke boats, the MPAs with the 'banger' buoys and the P-8s with the MAC setup. To a lesser extent the surface ships I think also were going in that direction; I think the new frigates and LSC were going to use a towed active source.
Click to expand...

The FFG-62s have the same sonars there are supposed to be in the LCS ASW kit, which is both the TB-37 towed array (operates in both active and passive modes, a departure from the older passive-only TACTASS) and a separate SQS-62 variable depth sonar (active). So yeah, the evidence points toward increased use of active modes.
 
The debate between High and Low end surface ships is one familar to all Navies. The numbers game is great for politicians and journalists but a balanced fleet requires a clear idea of what you want it to do.
Emphasising ASW as the RN did in the Cold War can result in ships which have difficulty coping with air or surface threats.
But are surface ships the most effective means of countering an enemy fleet if you have SSN and strike aircraft available.
Assuming that the PLAN is "the enemy fleet in being" a balanced US Navy needs to focus on which units of the PLAN are serious opponents rarher than its size.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom