Josh_TN

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 4, 2019
Messages
1,558
Reaction score
1,127
It actually usage in combat they have always operated under the friendly air cover of one of the other US air based services. Let us start another thread if needed since this is off topic, or else agree to disagree on the cost effectiveness of USMC requirements that heavily impacted the final design.
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
15,341
Reaction score
4,632
It actually usage in combat they have always operated under the friendly air cover of one of the other US air based services. Let us start another thread if needed since this is off topic, or else agree to disagree on the cost effectiveness of USMC requirements that heavily impacted the final design.
Agree to disagree. A F-35A/C would have turned out better but if they didn't get the B in there the B would have never happened. Imagine the unit cost if it couldn't take advantage of commonality.
 

TomS

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
5,636
Reaction score
3,782
re range watch the video with 5" gun firing a modern sub-caliber Leonardo Vulcano projectile/shell, range claimed 90 km and that's with ~18 lbs of propellant charge. The Iwoa 16" guns reduced flashless propellant charge is 325 lbs (max 655 lbs) so I'll let you calculate range with say an equivalent 16" Vulcano sub-caliber round with a 1,500 lbs projectile/shell (the propellant figures reflects the massive difference the square cube law brings with larger diameters)

Sure, you could probably develop a guided, subcaliber 16-inch shell with range that might match the requirement. (Such a program was actually proposed, then cancelled in 1991) For a development cost probably similar to LRLAP. With the added constraint that you'd now have a round that only works in three ships with a fairly short remaining service life.*


* I say three instead of four, because if you want to keep the Iowas around much past the mid-1990s, you're going to have to pick one to cannibalize to keep the other three running. I nominate Iowa herself, which is already down a turret after 1989. Even with that, 2010 is probably the absolute limit. They're old ships, with quite long service lives, even discounting their time in mothballs. And they've been eating up a carrier worth of manpower the whole time.
 

Cordy

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Nov 5, 2019
Messages
194
Reaction score
170
It actually usage in combat they have always operated under the friendly air cover of one of the other US air based services. Let us start another thread if needed since this is off topic, or else agree to disagree on the cost effectiveness of USMC requirements that heavily impacted the final design.
You can argue the discussion is 100% on topic, the CONOPS/the sole reason for Zumwalts existence, was for the Navy to provide NGFS for the Marines and now due to Zumwalts total failure to fulfill its mission is there an alternative by using the F-35B etc

re range watch the video with 5" gun firing a modern sub-caliber Leonardo Vulcano projectile/shell, range claimed 90 km and that's with ~18 lbs of propellant charge. The Iwoa 16" guns reduced flashless propellant charge is 325 lbs (max 655 lbs) so I'll let you calculate range with say an equivalent 16" Vulcano sub-caliber round with a 1,500 lbs projectile/shell (the propellant figures reflects the massive difference the square cube law brings with larger diameters)

Sure, you could probably develop a guided, subcaliber 16-inch shell with range that might match the requirement. (Such a program was actually proposed, then cancelled in 1991) For a development cost probably similar to LRLAP. With the added constraint that you'd now have a round that only works in three ships with a fairly short remaining service life.*

Thanks for info on the proposed program for 16" sub-caliber round, would add don't think the sub-caliber round would cost anything like the cost of the LRLAP, sub-caliber tech is well known and proved, the NAVY fell for the LockMart con with their LRLAP rocket round, Navy should have known better, LockMart original 2004 estimate was $35,000, LOL actual ~ $1 million each.
 

Firefinder

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Oct 6, 2019
Messages
283
Reaction score
430
You can argue the discussion is 100% on topic, the CONOPS/the sole reason for Zumwalts existence, was for the Navy to provide NGFS for the Marines and now due to Zumwalts total failure to fulfill its mission
Sigh, i hate how widespread this.

This is utterly wrong.

The NGFS role was the MOST PUBLICIZE ROLE.

The Zumwalt class was to be the MULTIROLE REPLACEMENT for the wore out Spruance class.

This included NGSR since at the time it seemed like an easy add on at the time compare to the next RADARs, Sonars, STEALTHING. And hey if it became an issue we can just from the gundfor more missiles as design and come back to it, a simple win win.

Thing is since Fire Support is a pretty neat thing Congress locked onto that and basically forced that thru at the expense of the other roles, like ASW.
 

TomS

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
5,636
Reaction score
3,782
You can argue the discussion is 100% on topic, the CONOPS/the sole reason for Zumwalts existence, was for the Navy to provide NGFS for the Marines and now due to Zumwalts total failure to fulfill its mission
Sigh, i hate how widespread this.

This is utterly wrong.

The NGFS role was the MOST PUBLICIZE ROLE.

The Zumwalt class was to be the MULTIROLE REPLACEMENT for the wore out Spruance class.

This included NGSR since at the time it seemed like an easy add on at the time compare to the next RADARs, Sonars, STEALTHING. And hey if it became an issue we can just from the gundfor more missiles as design and come back to it, a simple win win.

Thing is since Fire Support is a pretty neat thing Congress locked onto that and basically forced that thru at the expense of the other roles, like ASW.

Very true. The DD-21 was a direct roles and missions replacement for the DD-963, plus enhanced air defense for the modern near-shore threat environment and stealth to survive against advanced coastal defenses.

I'll disagree only on a couple of minor points.

1) It wasn't just Congress that latched onto the fire support role. The Navy jumped all over it, because the budget environment didn't look very friendly to "more of the same" procurements, and the Marines were making all sorts of noise about their new raid-based operating doctrine (OMFTS/STOM). The Navy seemed convinced that blue-water warfighting wasn't a marketable role for the 21st century and that the Marines had the winning ticket. Hence the branding of DD-21 as a "Land-Attack Destroyer" and the flailing around with various alternative strike missiles (LASM, ALAM, etc.) that I'm fairly sure was never intended to actually procure anything. This came back to bite them in a big way when the next two wars turned out to be essentially land-locked Army-led affairs.

2) The DDG-1000 didn't sacrifice ASW. Zumwalt is incredibly quiet, which is a big plus in ASW. Sensor-wise, it has the Multi-Function Towed Array active/passive sonar that is becoming the standard across the USN. The big difference from the DDGs is the switch to the SQS-60 MF sonar and SQS-61 HF combo, tailored more for near-shore waters than the giant SQS-53 LF sets across the rest of the fleet.
If anything, what got lost was air defense, with the shambles that was DDG-1000's radar development.
 

TomS

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
5,636
Reaction score
3,782

Sure, you could probably develop a guided, subcaliber 16-inch shell with range that might match the requirement. (Such a program was actually proposed, then cancelled in 1991) For a development cost probably similar to LRLAP. With the added constraint that you'd now have a round that only works in three ships with a fairly short remaining service life.*

Thanks for info on the proposed program for 16" sub-caliber round, would add don't think the sub-caliber round would cost anything like the cost of the LRLAP, sub-caliber tech is well known and proved, the NAVY fell for the LockMart con with their LRLAP rocket round, Navy should have known better, LockMart original 2004 estimate was $35,000, LOL actual ~ $1 million each.

Guided, subcaliber. At those ranges, without guidance, there's no point. And there's no reason to think a guided 12-inch subcaliber projectile would be significantly cheaper or easier to develop than a guided 6.1-inch round.

Absolutely agree that LRLAP management was stupendously bad, but I tend to blame the Navy. Recurring issue here; the Navy transferred so much of its actual technical knowhow to the contractors in the 1990s that it doesn't have the internal capacity to properly evaluate proposals for feasibility and cost-credibility. We see this time and again, from "small" programs like remote minehunting systems all the way up to major acquisitions like DD-21 itself.

For example, the Navy leadership was totally blindsided when the initial industry proposals for DD-21 came in at ~16,000 tons, because NAVSEA had no internal design activity capable of telling them how big a ship their stated requirements would produce or how expensive it was likely to be. There were some small teams doing "Spring Style" designs, ostensibly to validate design tools, but no one was reality-checking planned procurements as far as I can tell.
 

totallyaverage

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Apr 15, 2018
Messages
33
Reaction score
68
LRLAP never cost $1mm per round, this is just a myth that won't die. The actual cost according to the FY16 budget request was about $360k for the projectile for a buy of 241 rounds, about twice the quantity-adjusted price of Excalibur, which is A) half the size, and B) went through an aggressive cost reduction program that cut the unit price by double digit percentages.
 

Cordy

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Nov 5, 2019
Messages
194
Reaction score
170
You can argue the discussion is 100% on topic, the CONOPS/the sole reason for Zumwalts existence, was for the Navy to provide NGFS for the Marines and now due to Zumwalts total failure to fulfill its mission
Sigh, i hate how widespread this.

This is utterly wrong.

The NGFS role was the MOST PUBLICIZE ROLE.

The Zumwalt class was to be the MULTIROLE REPLACEMENT for the wore out Spruance class.

This included NGSR since at the time it seemed like an easy add on at the time compare to the next RADARs, Sonars, STEALTHING. And hey if it became an issue we can just from the gundfor more missiles as design and come back to it, a simple win win.

Thing is since Fire Support is a pretty neat thing Congress locked onto that and basically forced that thru at the expense of the other roles, like ASW.
CNO Adm Roughhead when testifying before Congress calling for the cancelation of the Zumwalt program, one reason given was the ASW AN/SQS 61 & 62 mid and high band frequency sonars as they were specifically designed to operate in the near shore littoral zone for its NGFS mission and unsuitable for blue water operations, where low frequency band sonars required, as the AN/SQS 53 sonar fitted on Burkes.
 

TomS

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
5,636
Reaction score
3,782
CNO Adm Roughhead when testifying before Congress calling for the cancelation of the Zumwalt program, one reason given was the ASW AN/SQS 61 & 62 mid and high band frequency sonars as they were specifically designed to operate in the near shore littoral zone for its NGFS mission and unsuitable for blue water operations, where low frequency band sonars required, as the AN/SQS 53 sonar fitted on Burkes.

Hmm, the main testimony I see on this is from DCNO McCullough, and it's frankly pretty disingenuous. It says, in summary, "we don't need the littoral ASW capability of DD-21/DDG-1000 because we have all these LCS with great littoral ASW capabilities." Which was a flat out lie at the time he said it and is still pretty much untrue today. And it ignores the fact that the Zumwalts got MFTA, a very capable deep-water towed array sonar, the very same system used by both LCS and the most recent/upgraded DDG-51s.


What we saw was a faction fight between the AEGIS supporters (once revolutionaries, now the old guard) and a generation of leadership who wanted to build ships along a very different paradigm (Z as built was pretty mild; the ships envisaged by Admiral Metcalf in "Revolution at Sea" were radical by comparison). Zumwalt was an easy target given how badly wrong pieces of it went and how expensive it became. But they rolled out a whole bunch of pretty shaky operational arguments to axe it. Apparently, the threat environment changed from littorals to deep water AIP submarines and ballistic missiles in about two months sometime in 2008.
 

Tuna

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Oct 13, 2016
Messages
79
Reaction score
87
Our views differ :)

Only one of your views is compatible with objective reality. I don't think you understand how ridiculously expensive they would be to run.

The fully burdened cost of a sailor doing useful work (on top of their current wages, including all the costs DoD paid to train them, and everything they will cost after they retire, distributed to their useful worklife), is ~$300,000 per year. The low-end crew requirement for Iowa that's capable of manning all 9 guns simultaneously is ~1800. Maintaining an Iowa for a year costs more than half a billion just for the personnel. Then you add up the problems caused by the fact that they were built 70 years ago, and have tons of equipment that has failed or is failing, and for which there are no spares readily available. Ships have limited useful service lives. It doesn't matter how awesome they are, at some point it will simply be literally cheaper to build a new one than to keep an old one running. And the Iowas were designed way back when the cost of manning them was a fraction of what it is today, so they don't try to be trifty with labor.
 

Desertfox

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Feb 26, 2007
Messages
351
Reaction score
203
There was a simple solution to the Iowas' dilemma, take their turrets and plop them on a new simple single-purpose ship, like the monitors of old. One turret, some self defense weapons (RAM, CIWS, etc), diesels, done.
 

Moose

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2010
Messages
1,634
Reaction score
811
There was a simple solution to the Iowas' dilemma, take their turrets and plop them on a new simple single-purpose ship, like the monitors of old. One turret, some self defense weapons (RAM, CIWS, etc), diesels, done.
They would still need larger crews than modern DDGs, that's a lot for a single-mission ship which can't defend itself from much.
 

Colonial-Marine

Fighting the UAV mafia.
Joined
Oct 5, 2009
Messages
868
Reaction score
206
They disposed of all the remaining 16" shells minus a few demilitarized ones for display and such. Probably cut up most of the spare barrels they had too. Reactivating the Iowas or any of their 16" guns is simply a no-go now.
 

Firefinder

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Oct 6, 2019
Messages
283
Reaction score
430
They disposed of all the remaining 16" shells minus a few demilitarized ones for display and such. Probably cut up most of the spare barrels they had too. Reactivating the Iowas or any of their 16" guns is simply a no-go now.
For these it needs to be point out that, and I can not stress this enough.

EXPLOSIVES HAVE A LIFE EXPECTANCY.

The newest 16inch shell was made in late 50s at the best since the gear to make them was scrap in the mid-60s, and while they did make a few new ones for that Enhanced Range project they did in the late 80s. They were cheap custem made jobs for testing clearances and Im not sure any were shottable. If you lucky the dud rate be your only worry, but more likely they will blow up in the barrel once the propellant* goes off.

And while you can repact the shells with new explosives.

After a certain age it just becames too dangerous and you better off paying for the new factory to build them.

Also it needs to be mention that these shells predate literally all the modern safety regs so they are a Forestall fire waiting to happen.

*And that is another SNAFU the propellant, cant use modern stuff in that, you bust the breeches. And See the above for the old shells for using the old stuff.

Honestly the navy will do well backing the Army SLRC and putting that on ships...
 

Cordy

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Nov 5, 2019
Messages
194
Reaction score
170
Our views differ :)

Only one of your views is compatible with objective reality. I don't think you understand how ridiculously expensive they would be to run.

The fully burdened cost of a sailor doing useful work (on top of their current wages, including all the costs DoD paid to train them, and everything they will cost after they retire, distributed to their useful worklife), is ~$300,000 per year. The low-end crew requirement for Iowa that's capable of manning all 9 guns simultaneously is ~1800. Maintaining an Iowa for a year costs more than half a billion just for the personnel. Then you add up the problems caused by the fact that they were built 70 years ago, and have tons of equipment that has failed or is failing, and for which there are no spares readily available. Ships have limited useful service lives. It doesn't matter how awesome they are, at some point it will simply be literally cheaper to build a new one than to keep an old one running. And the Iowas were designed way back when the cost of manning them was a fraction of what it is today, so they don't try to be trifty with labor.


Battleships "how ridiculously expensive they would be to run" large warships are very, very expensive to run but with battleships you are paying for the amount of high explosives the 16" guns can deliver on the beachhead which don't think any other weapon system can match for the cost. Need to keep things in perspective, Iowa crew ~1,800, 7,200 for four, the replacement plan was for 32 Zumwalts with crew of 200+ each ~6,400+ (last figure saw for Zumwalt crew was 180+ without its main weapon system, AGS 155mm operational) for reference a single Nimitz carrier is ~6,000 and finally would add Navy has a strength of 350,000 so Iowa's would account for nominal ~2% of its manpower.

Do agree with your point Iowa's would need serious upgrade, but don't think it would have cost anything like the $26 billion wasted on the 3 Zumwalts, but its all water under the bridge as Navy has abandoned its NGFS role in supporting the Marines making opposed landings against a peer enemy and don't see any current weapon system replacing the firepower of battleships.
 

Bhurki

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Jul 16, 2020
Messages
336
Reaction score
344
Our views differ :)

Only one of your views is compatible with objective reality. I don't think you understand how ridiculously expensive they would be to run.

The fully burdened cost of a sailor doing useful work (on top of their current wages, including all the costs DoD paid to train them, and everything they will cost after they retire, distributed to their useful worklife), is ~$300,000 per year. The low-end crew requirement for Iowa that's capable of manning all 9 guns simultaneously is ~1800. Maintaining an Iowa for a year costs more than half a billion just for the personnel. Then you add up the problems caused by the fact that they were built 70 years ago, and have tons of equipment that has failed or is failing, and for which there are no spares readily available. Ships have limited useful service lives. It doesn't matter how awesome they are, at some point it will simply be literally cheaper to build a new one than to keep an old one running. And the Iowas were designed way back when the cost of manning them was a fraction of what it is today, so they don't try to be trifty with labor.


Battleships "how ridiculously expensive they would be to run" large warships are very, very expensive to run but with battleships you are paying for the amount of high explosives the 16" guns can deliver on the beachhead which don't think any other weapon system can match for the cost. Need to keep things in perspective, Iowa crew ~1,800, 7,200 for four, the replacement plan was for 32 Zumwalts with crew of 200+ each ~6,400+ (last figure saw for Zumwalt crew was 180+ without its main weapon system, AGS 155mm operational) for reference a single Nimitz carrier is ~6,000 and finally would add Navy has a strength of 350,000 so Iowa's would account for nominal ~2% of its manpower.

Do agree with your point Iowa's would need serious upgrade, but don't think it would have cost anything like the $26 billion wasted on the 3 Zumwalts, but its all water under the bridge as Navy has abandoned its NGFS role in supporting the Marines making opposed landings against a peer enemy and don't see any current weapon system replacing the firepower of battleships.
A better way to assess effectiveness would be to compare
1) Number of targets prosecuted/ number of projectiles carried per sailor.
2) Weight of explosives delivered per sailor.
 

TomS

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
5,636
Reaction score
3,782
Navy has abandoned its NGFS role in supporting the Marines making opposed landings against a peer enemy
The Marines have abandoned this idea. Because it's a terrible idea that leads to thousands of dead Marines with no return on that horrendous investment.

It's not 1944 anymore. No one will ever reproduce a Tarawa-style invasion against a top-tier adversary in the 21st Century because it's fundamentally suicidal.
 
Last edited:

Archibald

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
8,347
Reaction score
7,806
Navy has abandoned its NGFS role in supporting the Marines making opposed landings against a peer enemy
The Marines have abandoned this idea. Because it's a terrible idea that leads to thousands of dead Marines with no return on that horrendous investment.

It's not 1944 anymore. No one will ever reproduce a Tarawa-style invasion against a top-tier adversary in the 21st Century because it's fundamentally suicidal.

Can't help thinking about John Basilone and Band of brothers: Pacific - and that final scene that has been described as "a tapestry of dead Marines" bodies seen from above...
 

Cordy

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Nov 5, 2019
Messages
194
Reaction score
170
Navy has abandoned its NGFS role in supporting the Marines making opposed landings against a peer enemy
The Marines have abandoned this idea. Because it's a terrible idea that leads to thousands of dead Marines with no return on that horrendous investment.

It's not 1944 anymore. No one will ever reproduce a Tarawa-style invasion against a top-tier adversary in the 21st Century because it's fundamentally suicidal.
That begs the question why is Congress currently funding ~184,000 Marines (1940 number ~28,000) would the money be better spent on increasing size of the fleet?
 

TomS

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
5,636
Reaction score
3,782
Navy has abandoned its NGFS role in supporting the Marines making opposed landings against a peer enemy
The Marines have abandoned this idea. Because it's a terrible idea that leads to thousands of dead Marines with no return on that horrendous investment.

It's not 1944 anymore. No one will ever reproduce a Tarawa-style invasion against a top-tier adversary in the 21st Century because it's fundamentally suicidal.
That begs the question why is Congress currently funding ~184,000 Marines (1940 number ~28,000) would the money be better spent on increasing size of the fleet?

Because the Marines can and do perform other missions than throwing human wave assaults at beachheads.
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
15,341
Reaction score
4,632
Navy has abandoned its NGFS role in supporting the Marines making opposed landings against a peer enemy
The Marines have abandoned this idea. Because it's a terrible idea that leads to thousands of dead Marines with no return on that horrendous investment.

It's not 1944 anymore. No one will ever reproduce a Tarawa-style invasion against a top-tier adversary in the 21st Century because it's fundamentally suicidal.
That begs the question why is Congress currently funding ~184,000 Marines (1940 number ~28,000) would the money be better spent on increasing size of the fleet?

Because the Marines can and do perform other missions than throwing human wave assaults at beachheads.
If we had to retake Taiwan you either do an amphibious assault or an air assault (effectively the same thing). Or we just let them keep it. Is there a fourth option I'm missing?
 

Firefinder

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Oct 6, 2019
Messages
283
Reaction score
430
Navy has abandoned its NGFS role in supporting the Marines making opposed landings against a peer enemy
The Marines have abandoned this idea. Because it's a terrible idea that leads to thousands of dead Marines with no return on that horrendous investment.

It's not 1944 anymore. No one will ever reproduce a Tarawa-style invasion against a top-tier adversary in the 21st Century because it's fundamentally suicidal.
That begs the question why is Congress currently funding ~184,000 Marines (1940 number ~28,000) would the money be better spent on increasing size of the fleet?

Because the Marines can and do perform other missions than throwing human wave assaults at beachheads.
If we had to retake Taiwan you either do an amphibious assault or an air assault (effectively the same thing). Or we just let them keep it. Is there a fourth option I'm missing?
Let the Army Airborne have fun.

But make no mistake.

If we ever EVER have to do a contested landing...

It be after we paste the landing zone with enough missiles, rockets and aircraft ordnance of all types that any resistances will be piecemeal.

That attack will be immediately follow up by a literal WAVE of troops with the idea that they have enough numbers and momentum to to overrun the remain resistance and get into defensive positions before enemy reinforcements can arrive.

By the time the Enemy does show up in force they have the Tow Arty and SPGs up and ready basically making NGFS redundant.

Which is a big thing.

In 1940s you were looking at 75mm packgun as being the biggest gun unit can expect to have with them during a landing and they were limited to direct fire. While being limited in Ammo until they are establish by which point the big guns are up and ready as well. So Gun Fire support from Ships WAS NEEDED. Naval Gunfire was often the only Artillery support or big gun support on the beachs able to do anything.

Nowadays the 155mm Paladin can keep up with the Abrams coming off the landing Craft and can do long range fires with nothing but a grid from the Fisters as soon as they are on the sand. And have a better then zero chance of surviving as well thanks to APS. Also has a bigger gun then on a ship as well.

Basically Tech has reach the point where you can do stuff with a fucking truck that took an ENTIRE BATTLESHIP to do in the past with all that implies.
 

Desertfox

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Feb 26, 2007
Messages
351
Reaction score
203
Navy has abandoned its NGFS role in supporting the Marines making opposed landings against a peer enemy
The Marines have abandoned this idea. Because it's a terrible idea that leads to thousands of dead Marines with no return on that horrendous investment.

It's not 1944 anymore. No one will ever reproduce a Tarawa-style invasion against a top-tier adversary in the 21st Century because it's fundamentally suicidal.
That begs the question why is Congress currently funding ~184,000 Marines (1940 number ~28,000) would the money be better spent on increasing size of the fleet?

Because the Marines can and do perform other missions than throwing human wave assaults at beachheads.
If we had to retake Taiwan you either do an amphibious assault or an air assault (effectively the same thing). Or we just let them keep it. Is there a fourth option I'm missing?
Siege warfare has been shown to be incredibly effective thought the centuries.
 

Dilandu

I'm dissatisfied, which means, I exist.
Joined
May 30, 2013
Messages
2,256
Reaction score
2,095
Website
fonzeppelin.livejournal.com
It be after we paste the landing zone with enough missiles, rockets and aircraft ordnance of all types that any resistances will be piecemeal.

That attack will be immediately follow up by a literal WAVE of troops with the idea that they have enough numbers and momentum to to overrun the remain resistance and get into defensive positions before enemy reinforcements can arrive.
At this moment the enemy would start to hit the landing zone with ballistics and hypersonics, and drones and long-range rocket artillery. I'm not sure the wave of troops would fare any better than defenders.
 

Dilandu

I'm dissatisfied, which means, I exist.
Joined
May 30, 2013
Messages
2,256
Reaction score
2,095
Website
fonzeppelin.livejournal.com
If we had to retake Taiwan you either do an amphibious assault or an air assault (effectively the same thing). Or we just let them keep it. Is there a fourth option I'm missing?
I kinda doubt that US would be able to muster enough troops and transport capabilities to retook Taiwan BEFORE Chinese would turn the island into the bastion. Not to mention that such attack would be a direct and unprovoked aggression against Chinese territory (I remind you, that US do not recognize Taiwan).
 

Firefinder

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Oct 6, 2019
Messages
283
Reaction score
430
It be after we paste the landing zone with enough missiles, rockets and aircraft ordnance of all types that any resistances will be piecemeal.

That attack will be immediately follow up by a literal WAVE of troops with the idea that they have enough numbers and momentum to to overrun the remain resistance and get into defensive positions before enemy reinforcements can arrive.
At this moment the enemy would start to hit the landing zone with ballistics and hypersonics, and drones and long-range rocket artillery. I'm not sure the wave of troops would fare any better than defenders.
Thus is why the Army is looking into all the CRAM type gear while both the Patriots and Standards are getting upgrades to handle hypersonics. Especially considering the Army is quickly equiping many vehicles with lasers strong enough to take out drones and most rockets while they are still at repetitively harmless range.

Throw in the fact that the US Military is large enough to do the old Tactic of.

Look right hit with left.

Basically the Defenders have a wide front that they have to stop any attack while the Attacker has to only get a small needle through a hole in the armor and defend long enough that they are basically in a foothold situation. By which point it becames nearly impossible to push out the attackers without a major push that draws forces away from other aways, which will allow those to be attack. This been true since forever.

This is mind you extremely simplifed version of tactics that literally have more words than this Forum allows per post. The Military, everywhere, has terabytes of data from all the plans counterplans counter-counterplans etc for this.

And either way...

Its is going to be a fucking blood bath. Might not be as bad as say...

Any WW2 assaults, the number differences alone prevent that, but far worse then any modern attack in recent history. Think what the Expects was saying before Desert Storm. Something on the order of a few thousand dead or so a day ircc.
 

A Tentative Fleet Plan

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Apr 9, 2018
Messages
307
Reaction score
589
Does anyone have any images and detailed information on the original Gold Team and Blue Team DD(X)/DD-21 designs, beyond the paintings and low-poly CGI renders?
 

TomS

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
5,636
Reaction score
3,782
Apparently, the threat environment changed from littorals to deep water AIP submarines and ballistic missiles in about two months sometime in 2008.

Although, as I look back, it turns out that the US acknowledged DF-21D as an operational antiship ballistic missile system in 2010. SO maybe someone was concerned before that...
 

TomS

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
5,636
Reaction score
3,782
Does anyone have any images and detailed information on the original Gold Team and Blue Team DD(X)/DD-21 designs, beyond the paintings and low-poly CGI renders?

Found some stuff from the old Gold Team website via the Wayback Machine: Probably not what you're looking for, but it might help

Gold Team: https://web.archive.org/web/20011021120429/http://www.dd21goldteam.com/downloads.htm

I'm wondering if I still have any of the brochures from back then. Probably not but I'll try to take a look sometime when the garage archive gets back above freezing.
 

A Tentative Fleet Plan

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Apr 9, 2018
Messages
307
Reaction score
589
Does anyone have any images and detailed information on the original Gold Team and Blue Team DD(X)/DD-21 designs, beyond the paintings and low-poly CGI renders?

Found some stuff from the old Gold Team website via the Wayback Machine: Probably not what you're looking for, but it might help

Gold Team: https://web.archive.org/web/20011021120429/http://www.dd21goldteam.com/downloads.htm

I'm wondering if I still have any of the brochures from back then. Probably not but I'll try to take a look sometime when the garage archive gets back above freezing.
Thanks

I'll admit I was thinking more about the design below, with VLS cells between the deckhouse and the edge of the hull.

dd21gold.jpg
b6635ac69b50f359a60548e1a3eff5001a1ffae.jpg
 

Moose

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2010
Messages
1,634
Reaction score
811
Does anyone have any images and detailed information on the original Gold Team and Blue Team DD(X)/DD-21 designs, beyond the paintings and low-poly CGI renders?

Found some stuff from the old Gold Team website via the Wayback Machine: Probably not what you're looking for, but it might help

Gold Team: https://web.archive.org/web/20011021120429/http://www.dd21goldteam.com/downloads.htm

I'm wondering if I still have any of the brochures from back then. Probably not but I'll try to take a look sometime when the garage archive gets back above freezing.
Thanks

I'll admit I was thinking more about the design below, with VLS cells between the deckhouse and the edge of the hull.

View attachment 673081
View attachment 673082
Thats from DD-21, before it was cut down in displacement substantially. Notice that the fligjt deck is even larger than the Z's huge deck.
 

Firefinder

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Oct 6, 2019
Messages
283
Reaction score
430
Does anyone have any images and detailed information on the original Gold Team and Blue Team DD(X)/DD-21 designs, beyond the paintings and low-poly CGI renders?

Found some stuff from the old Gold Team website via the Wayback Machine: Probably not what you're looking for, but it might help

Gold Team: https://web.archive.org/web/20011021120429/http://www.dd21goldteam.com/downloads.htm

I'm wondering if I still have any of the brochures from back then. Probably not but I'll try to take a look sometime when the garage archive gets back above freezing.
Thanks

I'll admit I was thinking more about the design below, with VLS cells between the deckhouse and the edge of the hull.

View attachment 673081
View attachment 673082
Thats from DD-21, before it was cut down in displacement substantially. Notice that the fligjt deck is even larger than the Z's huge deck.
Jeeze how many missiles were they planing?

A full 120 or double for 160?

Also Im guessing that the hanger guns are the cut 57mm as well?
 

Moose

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2010
Messages
1,634
Reaction score
811
Does anyone have any images and detailed information on the original Gold Team and Blue Team DD(X)/DD-21 designs, beyond the paintings and low-poly CGI renders?

Found some stuff from the old Gold Team website via the Wayback Machine: Probably not what you're looking for, but it might help

Gold Team: https://web.archive.org/web/20011021120429/http://www.dd21goldteam.com/downloads.htm

I'm wondering if I still have any of the brochures from back then. Probably not but I'll try to take a look sometime when the garage archive gets back above freezing.
Thanks

I'll admit I was thinking more about the design below, with VLS cells between the deckhouse and the edge of the hull.

View attachment 673081
View attachment 673082
Thats from DD-21, before it was cut down in displacement substantially. Notice that the fligjt deck is even larger than the Z's huge deck.
Jeeze how many missiles were they planing?

A full 120 or double for 160?

Also Im guessing that the hanger guns are the cut 57mm as well?
128 was the max, I believe they didn't have many (if any) alongside the flight deck at that time. I think those guns may be the 40mm that were just penciled in at the time, the mk110 didn't happen until years later. Obviously not visible here, though you can see some signs in the deckhouse, are the 4 full-size turbines DD-21 was to have, instead of the 2 big and 2 small that the Zs use. 120-140MW would sure come in handy in the laser age.
 

TomS

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
5,636
Reaction score
3,782
128 was the max, I believe they didn't have many (if any) alongside the flight deck at that time. I think those guns may be the 40mm that were just penciled in at the time, the mk110 didn't happen until years later. Obviously not visible here, though you can see some signs in the deckhouse, are the 4 full-size turbines DD-21 was to have, instead of the 2 big and 2 small that the Zs use. 120-140MW would sure come in handy in the laser age

Correct. SC-21 had allowed up to 256 cells but that was never in budget.

At this stage, the design was something like 689 feet long (I just trawled back through my old Usenet posts from when the teams announced their designs.) After downselect, they had to trim it to 610 feet, and one way to do that was to relocate the midships VLS aft alongside the flight deck and reduce it in numbers (down to a total of 80). One side effect was that the superstructure could go full width, which I think increased the arrangeable volume and improved the signature.

Yeah, the close-in guns at this point were 40mm Trinity but rapidly became 57mm just to avoid adopting yet another caliber. (Blue Team had proposed 3x30mm, which was a bit prescient.)
 

apparition13

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jan 27, 2017
Messages
325
Reaction score
520
Re. VGAS, has anyone seen any illustrations or models of DD-21 with VGAS rather than AGS? I'd like to know what those initial designs would have looked like.
 

TomS

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
5,636
Reaction score
3,782
Re. VGAS, has anyone seen any illustrations or models of DD-21 with VGAS rather than AGS? I'd like to know what those initial designs would have looked like.

Early concept design showing AGS (VGAS) combined with a single trainable gun (probably a 5-inch Mk 45 with a low-RCS enclosure).

This would not have represented anything that was actually proposed by industry, since AGS became a trainable gun-launcher before the requirement went out to competition.

1645551564194.png

A few more images of this same model here:
 

apparition13

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jan 27, 2017
Messages
325
Reaction score
520
Re. VGAS, has anyone seen any illustrations or models of DD-21 with VGAS rather than AGS? I'd like to know what those initial designs would have looked like.

Early concept design showing AGS (VGAS) combined with a single trainable gun (probably a 5-inch Mk 45 with a low-RCS enclosure).

This would not have represented anything that was actually proposed by industry, since AGS became a trainable gun-launcher before the requirement went out to competition.
That's frustratingly vague. I guess I had the timeline wrong. I thought the CG/DD-21 designs were being developed with VGAS, then Congress forced the switch to AGS and the designs changed. I'd also really like to see a plan view of that illustration. I can't really see where the VLS modules are supposed to go in relation to the helipad and hangar. It seems the concept was not as well developed as I thought it was.
 

Similar threads

Top