New USN PC idea

[johnpjones1775]

We’re talking about a patrol vessel with some real offensive and defensive capability.

Enough capability that can make an attacker question, is it worth the cost to attack this vessel?

You need to be more specific about the scenario. Where is this patrol vessel operating and what is it doing? My thoughts:

Scenario 1: Forward deployed in peacetime
Won’t need those ASMs or SAMs any more than the Cyclone class or USCG cutters who do the same job today.

Scenario 2: Defensive ASW patrols in wartime
Will be hundreds or thousands of miles from the forward line of operations. It is not going to come across enemy ship or missile threats, short of a full sortie by a major enemy fleet.

Scenario 3: Operating in a combat zone. Not a job for a patrol boat anymore, but a full-on missile corvette or frigate.

Note that the above hasn’t really changed since WWII, where sub chasers, sloops, and corvettes did one job while destroyers and light cruisers did another. (With late war frigates & destroyer escorts kind of being a general purpose hybrid, similar to a Cold War FFG-7 or 1990s Meko / La Fayette general purpose frigate).

Cyclones did have ASMs equipped in the form of griffin ASMs, however as I’ve noted I think the cyclones and the FRCs (and their predecessors) are woefully undergunned

A properly armed PC or OPV could fill the same role as a WWII PT boat.

That's the job of a missile FAC these days.

Which means you need Harpoon or equivalent missiles (or Tomahawk Block 4 ASMs, which require an even heavier launcher), plus the combat sensors to give them targets.

And those sensors and combat systems are the expensive parts of a ship!

A corvette would fill the same role as well WWII corvettes and DEs.

So, you want an OPV with heavy ASW capabilities plus antiship missiles, and enough AA to make attacking one a questionable activity?

Such a thing would be on the order of 1000 tons minimum displacement, and probably closer to the size of a full on FFG7. Not cheap, either, due to all the fancy systems.

And honestly, it would definitely be something that would benefit from something like the LCS modules and/or STANFLEX. You'd need to have some extra combat modules laid out ahead of time, because the typical missions would not require the full combat capabilities. I'd leave the AAW capabilities in. It may be useful to be able to swap between gun modules, 57mm for the usual patrolling, 3" guided/rocket boosted for full combat.

I said nothing about ‘heavy ASW’ capabilities whatever that means.

I said 1 sonar, 4 VLS, RAM, and mk110.

That can all be fit on something the size of a river class quite easily.

A smaller vessel it’s a bit harder, and either the RAM or mk110 might have to be left behind.

And as I said before ESSM isn’t a slouch in ASuW.
Probably won’t sink a modern DDG or FFG, but they could definitely mission kill a modern major combatant.

History : TCG Muavenet destroyer shot by 2 Sea Sparrow missiles

TCG Muavenet destroyer shot by 2 Sea Sparrow missiles fired from the aircraft carrier USS Saratoga during a NATO exercise in Saros Bay, Turkey in 1992, resulting in death and injury among its crew.

defencehub.live

i'll admit i don't actually care about the tonnage but i'm looking at something in the 200ft long range 200-275ft long and 30-40ft or so abeam. if that comes out to 500tons or 1500tons doesn't actually matter that much. over all size stays small, ship stays relatively cheap.

as for weight and what can handle what, as i've stated before, a mk VI boat can carry 4 NSMs. sea giraffe radar can target air and surface tracks. there are variations of sea giraffe that can be fitted to riverine assault craft. a large 3000ton ship is not needed to achieve what you described, and it certainly isn't necessary to mount 4 cell VLS, a gun, and a sonar.

btw sea giraffe is only $25million dollars. not cheap by any means, but when compared to spy which comes in at around $300m i think we can call that pretty low cost

AN/SPY-6 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

AN/SPS-77 Sea Giraffe 3D Air Search Radars | Defense Security Cooperation Agency

www.dsca.mil

 

[johnpjones1775]

just going based off of weapons and sensors rough pricing for what i'm asking for

4 cell VLS approx $17m

A Missile Container Navy Would be Six Times More Cost Effective | NextBigFuture.com

The US Navy is considering converting available merchant ships into missile-armed Navy ships. They would be able to make 15-20 merchant ships for the cost of

www.nextbigfuture.com

sea giraffe $25m

AN/SPS-77 Sea Giraffe 3D Air Search Radars | Defense Security Cooperation Agency

www.dsca.mil

mk110 $26m

BAE Systems Awarded $26 Million Contract To Procure Three Additional 57mm MK 110 Mod 0 Gun - MilitaryLeak.COM

BAE Systems Land & Armaments L.P., Minneapolis, Minnesota, was awarded a $26,069,645 firm-fixed-price modification to previously awarded contract

militaryleak.com

hull mounted sonar $7.1m

DSIT Receives a $7.1m Order for Blackfish Hull Mounted Sonar Systems for Anti-Submarine Warfare

DSIT Solutions announced today that it has received a new $7.1m order for its Blackfish Hull Mounted Sonar (HMS) systems…

www.naval-technology.com

not counting ammunition, we're looking at $75.1m for weapon systems and sensors.
i'm just guessing here, but i bet we could build the whole ship to mount them on for approximately that same price or less so about $125m total with out ammunition costs figured in

 

[Scott Kenny]

just going based off of weapons and sensors rough pricing for what i'm asking for

4 cell VLS approx $17m

A Missile Container Navy Would be Six Times More Cost Effective | NextBigFuture.com

The US Navy is considering converting available merchant ships into missile-armed Navy ships. They would be able to make 15-20 merchant ships for the cost of

www.nextbigfuture.com

sea giraffe $25m

AN/SPS-77 Sea Giraffe 3D Air Search Radars | Defense Security Cooperation Agency

www.dsca.mil

mk110 $26m

BAE Systems Awarded $26 Million Contract To Procure Three Additional 57mm MK 110 Mod 0 Gun - MilitaryLeak.COM

BAE Systems Land & Armaments L.P., Minneapolis, Minnesota, was awarded a $26,069,645 firm-fixed-price modification to previously awarded contract

militaryleak.com

hull mounted sonar $7.1m

DSIT Receives a $7.1m Order for Blackfish Hull Mounted Sonar Systems for Anti-Submarine Warfare

DSIT Solutions announced today that it has received a new $7.1m order for its Blackfish Hull Mounted Sonar (HMS) systems…

www.naval-technology.com

not counting ammunition, we're looking at $75.1m for weapon systems and sensors.
i'm just guessing here, but i bet we could build the whole ship to mount them on for approximately that same price or less so about $125m total with out ammunition costs figured in

Plus a fire control system, which requires integration with chosen sensors and weapons. So at a minimum double that cost estimate.

Oh, and you need a surface search radar of some kind. Not a Furuno nav radar, a targeting radar. But still on the order of $150-200mil in systems, plus ammunition. Figure another $150-200mil for the ship built to military toughness standards, $300-400mil total.

 

[johnpjones1775]

just going based off of weapons and sensors rough pricing for what i'm asking for

4 cell VLS approx $17m

A Missile Container Navy Would be Six Times More Cost Effective | NextBigFuture.com

The US Navy is considering converting available merchant ships into missile-armed Navy ships. They would be able to make 15-20 merchant ships for the cost of

www.nextbigfuture.com

sea giraffe $25m

AN/SPS-77 Sea Giraffe 3D Air Search Radars | Defense Security Cooperation Agency

www.dsca.mil

mk110 $26m

BAE Systems Awarded $26 Million Contract To Procure Three Additional 57mm MK 110 Mod 0 Gun - MilitaryLeak.COM

BAE Systems Land & Armaments L.P., Minneapolis, Minnesota, was awarded a $26,069,645 firm-fixed-price modification to previously awarded contract

militaryleak.com

hull mounted sonar $7.1m

DSIT Receives a $7.1m Order for Blackfish Hull Mounted Sonar Systems for Anti-Submarine Warfare

DSIT Solutions announced today that it has received a new $7.1m order for its Blackfish Hull Mounted Sonar (HMS) systems…

www.naval-technology.com

not counting ammunition, we're looking at $75.1m for weapon systems and sensors.
i'm just guessing here, but i bet we could build the whole ship to mount them on for approximately that same price or less so about $125m total with out ammunition costs figured in

Plus a fire control system, which requires integration with chosen sensors and weapons. So at a minimum double that cost estimate.

Oh, and you need a surface search radar of some kind. Not a Furuno nav radar, a targeting radar. But still on the order of $150-200mil in systems, plus ammunition. Figure another $150-200mil for the ship built to military toughness standards, $300-400mil total.

Sea giraffe does that. It’s like you’ve ignored what I’ve said completely and refused to look at any of the information I’ve provided.

What does ‘military toughness standards’ mean?
Are you one of those people who thinks ‘military grade’ is an impressive marketing buzzword?

 

[Scott Kenny]

just going based off of weapons and sensors rough pricing for what i'm asking for

4 cell VLS approx $17m

A Missile Container Navy Would be Six Times More Cost Effective | NextBigFuture.com

The US Navy is considering converting available merchant ships into missile-armed Navy ships. They would be able to make 15-20 merchant ships for the cost of

www.nextbigfuture.com

sea giraffe $25m

AN/SPS-77 Sea Giraffe 3D Air Search Radars | Defense Security Cooperation Agency

www.dsca.mil

mk110 $26m

BAE Systems Awarded $26 Million Contract To Procure Three Additional 57mm MK 110 Mod 0 Gun - MilitaryLeak.COM

BAE Systems Land & Armaments L.P., Minneapolis, Minnesota, was awarded a $26,069,645 firm-fixed-price modification to previously awarded contract

militaryleak.com

hull mounted sonar $7.1m

DSIT Receives a $7.1m Order for Blackfish Hull Mounted Sonar Systems for Anti-Submarine Warfare

DSIT Solutions announced today that it has received a new $7.1m order for its Blackfish Hull Mounted Sonar (HMS) systems…

www.naval-technology.com

not counting ammunition, we're looking at $75.1m for weapon systems and sensors.
i'm just guessing here, but i bet we could build the whole ship to mount them on for approximately that same price or less so about $125m total with out ammunition costs figured in

Plus a fire control system, which requires integration with chosen sensors and weapons. So at a minimum double that cost estimate.

Oh, and you need a surface search radar of some kind. Not a Furuno nav radar, a targeting radar. But still on the order of $150-200mil in systems, plus ammunition. Figure another $150-200mil for the ship built to military toughness standards, $300-400mil total.

Sea giraffe does that. It’s like you’ve ignored what I’ve said completely and refused to look at any of the information I’ve provided.

Okay, my bad, it does actually do surface search. My bad.

Still need a fire control system that talks to the sensors and weapons you have chosen.

What does ‘military toughness standards’ mean?
Are you one of those people who thinks ‘military grade’ is an impressive marketing buzzword?

Don't insult me. Military grade means "built by the lowest bidder to the design specs" with a side order of "operated and maintained by a bunch of 18-22yo who don't care about it still working 20 years later."

Military survivability standards for a ship means much greater compartmentalization, firefighting and other damage control equipment built in a way that requires more than one break in the fire main to take down firefighting, all watertight bulkhead penetrations being fireproof, being designed for taking close aboard explosions without excessive damage, etc ad nauseam.

All the things that the LCS were NOT designed around.

 

[johnpjones1775]

just going based off of weapons and sensors rough pricing for what i'm asking for

4 cell VLS approx $17m

A Missile Container Navy Would be Six Times More Cost Effective | NextBigFuture.com

The US Navy is considering converting available merchant ships into missile-armed Navy ships. They would be able to make 15-20 merchant ships for the cost of

www.nextbigfuture.com

sea giraffe $25m

AN/SPS-77 Sea Giraffe 3D Air Search Radars | Defense Security Cooperation Agency

www.dsca.mil

mk110 $26m

BAE Systems Awarded $26 Million Contract To Procure Three Additional 57mm MK 110 Mod 0 Gun - MilitaryLeak.COM

BAE Systems Land & Armaments L.P., Minneapolis, Minnesota, was awarded a $26,069,645 firm-fixed-price modification to previously awarded contract

militaryleak.com

hull mounted sonar $7.1m

DSIT Receives a $7.1m Order for Blackfish Hull Mounted Sonar Systems for Anti-Submarine Warfare

DSIT Solutions announced today that it has received a new $7.1m order for its Blackfish Hull Mounted Sonar (HMS) systems…

www.naval-technology.com

not counting ammunition, we're looking at $75.1m for weapon systems and sensors.
i'm just guessing here, but i bet we could build the whole ship to mount them on for approximately that same price or less so about $125m total with out ammunition costs figured in

Plus a fire control system, which requires integration with chosen sensors and weapons. So at a minimum double that cost estimate.

Oh, and you need a surface search radar of some kind. Not a Furuno nav radar, a targeting radar. But still on the order of $150-200mil in systems, plus ammunition. Figure another $150-200mil for the ship built to military toughness standards, $300-400mil total.

Sea giraffe does that. It’s like you’ve ignored what I’ve said completely and refused to look at any of the information I’ve provided.

Okay, my bad, it does actually do surface search. My bad.

Still need a fire control system that talks to the sensors and weapons you have chosen.

What does ‘military toughness standards’ mean?
Are you one of those people who thinks ‘military grade’ is an impressive marketing buzzword?

Don't insult me. Military grade means "built by the lowest bidder to the design specs" with a side order of "operated and maintained by a bunch of 18-22yo who don't care about it still working 20 years later."

Military survivability standards for a ship means much greater compartmentalization, firefighting and other damage control equipment built in a way that requires more than one break in the fire main to take down firefighting, all watertight bulkhead penetrations being fireproof, being designed for taking close aboard explosions without excessive damage, etc ad nauseam.

All the things that the LCS were NOT designed around.

bruh, why are you bringing up LCSes? forgetting the fact that everything you mentioned is incorporated into LCSes...

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpYyhrjeup8


redundancy in the firemain isn't going to sky rocket costs, nor will a few extra bulkheads. again my estimate was including the basics of naval survivability. but yeah i am sure that the USN would get charged about 50% more for a fire fighting hose than a civilian company would be, but the hose would be slightly different to bypass those pesky US laws.

i am unfortunately unable to find CS pricing for anything but aegis, which would absolutely sky rocket the cost, but also be completely unnecessary

 

[Scott Kenny]

For a combat system, I'm not sure where to look for costs, surface navy is a target to me, not particularly an area of deep research.

Probably the Norwegians or Germans, whatever they're sticking in their large ships. That's probably a good measure. Whatever the Israelis are putting in their Saar 6 would be much better, but probably a lot more expensive as it's a baby Aegis system and well outside your stated needs for the ship.

redundancy in the firemain isn't going to sky rocket costs, nor will a few extra bulkheads. again my estimate was including the basics of naval survivability. but yeah i am sure that the USN would get charged about 50% more for a fire fighting hose than a civilian company would be, but the hose would be slightly different to bypass those pesky US laws.

i am unfortunately unable to find CS pricing for anything but aegis, which would absolutely sky rocket the cost, but also be completely unnecessary

All the extra compartmentalization and extras to have a chance of surviving combat are documented to add 100-200% of hull cost compared to a civilian spec ship. Takes more time and more materials to build, more engineering experience to make the blueprints to begin with, and the testing and certification of each system and ship takes time and money as well.

 

[johnpjones1775]

For a reference point the 179ft cyclones cost $20m in 90s money, adjusted for inflation thats roughly $48m today.
That’s whole package, so I feel that $70m for just a hull, at around 200ft is a fair estimate.
Add on the above weapons systems and sensors, and we’re sitting at $145m before combat system, which we’re all stumped on finding costs for so far, but there’s no way an appropriate CS can add more than $10-15m right?
So $160m per ship seems like a reasonable estimated price. $200m at the absolute most.

Another point of reference the 352ft Jose rizal frigate is sitting at about $205m

$145-170m seems more than reasonable for a total for what I am asking for.

The contract for the development of COMBATSS-21 CMS was $79m for the FFGs, but I still can’t find how much it actually costs to purchase for a ship.

 

[Scott Kenny]

For a reference point the 179ft cyclones cost $20m in 90s money, adjusted for inflation thats roughly $48m today.
That’s whole package, so I feel that $70m for just a hull, at around 200ft is a fair estimate.
Add on the above weapons systems and sensors, and we’re sitting at $145m before combat system, which we’re all stumped on finding costs for so far, but there’s no way an appropriate CS can add more than $10-15m right?
So $160m per ship seems like a reasonable estimated price. $200m at the absolute most.

Another point of reference the 352ft Jose rizal frigate is sitting at about $205m

$145-170m seems more than reasonable for a total for what I am asking for.

The contract for the development of COMBATSS-21 CMS was $79m for the FFGs, but I still can’t find how much it actually costs to purchase for a ship.

Remember that many prices for ships exclude Government Furnished Equipment, like the sensors, combat systems, weapons, etc.

 

[TomS]

You're still talking about enough of an ejection pulse to accelerate a 3500lb object to 50 knots in its own length.

And heavyweight torpedoes on surface ships for ASuW were discarded basically as soon as guided missiles were a thing.

Right, be we're talking about heavyweights for ASW, which actually lasted longer than you might think. Some FRAM DDs (the ones without DASH) and some DLGNs has Mk 25 fixed 21-inch tubes, mostly for Mk 37. When Mk 37 became obsolete thanks to faster Soviert subs (fast diesels and specially nukes) these tubes went away but not until the 1960s. The Garcias, Brooke's and even Knoxes were built with Mk 25 tubes and some sort of plans to fit the MK 48 to these ships persisted to about 1970 (definitely dropped by 1972). The Mk 48, BTW, was designed from the outset to be both as submarine and surface-launched torpedo.

The idea of surface-launched heavyweights for ASW may have revived a bit around the mid-1970s because a) Mk 46 was not looking all that good at running down fast Soviet subs and b) there was promise of improved ASW sensors like ERAPS that could exploit the range of a heavyweight from a surface ship. So we see designs like the ones I linked that have tubes for Mk 48. I'm not suggesting this was a great idea, but it was a fairly common proposal for quite a while into the mid-1970s or even early 1980s, even after Mk 48 development was officially limited to subs in 1972.

These tubes would not be the very heavy installations found in subs, because they didn't have to hold against ocean pressures, didn't have to expel the torpedo against water resistance, and didn't have to get the torpedo going all that fast. It was enough to push the torp over the side and away from the hull so gravity and the torpedo's own motor could do the rest. (Indeed, you don't want it to be too fast, becuade a fast/shallow entry can cause the torpedo to broach.) I can't find a weight for the Mk 25 tube , but its predecessors were basically aluminum cylinders (probably fiberglass wrapped aluminum by these 1976 proposals) with fairly lightweight muzzle caps and breeches.

Here's a picture of Mk 25 and Mk 32 tubes together on a FRAM DD (Allen M. Sumner) circa 1960:



And here's a Mk 48 being fired from a DEG, probably around 1969-70, from a better than average history of the MK 48 and surface ships on The Drive.

 

[Scott Kenny]

The idea of surface-launched heavyweights for ASW may have revived a bit around the mid-1970s because a) Mk 46 was not looking all that good at running down fast Soviet subs and b) there was promise of improved ASW sensors like ERAPS that could exploit the range of a heavyweight from a surface ship. So we see designs like the ones I linked that have tubes for Mk 48. I'm not suggesting this was a great idea, but it was a fairly common proposal for quite a while into the mid-1970s or even early 1980s, even after Mk 48 development was officially limited to subs in 1972.


These tubes would not be the very heavy installations found in subs, because they didn't have to hold against ocean pressures, didn't have to expel the torpedo against water resistance, and didn't have to get the torpedo going all that fast. It was enough to push the torp over the side and away from the hull so gravity and the torpedo's own motor could do the rest. (Indeed, you don't want it to be too fast, becuade a fast/shallow entry can cause the torpedo to broach.) I can't find a weight for the Mk 25 tube , but its predecessors were basically aluminum cylinders (probably fiberglass wrapped aluminum by these 1976 proposals) with fairly lightweight muzzle caps and breeches.

Okay.

Still seems really weird to me, but I can accept that the tubes needed for a heavyweight torpedo on a surface ship were a lot lighter than those on a sub.

And here's a Mk 48 being fired from a DEG, probably around 1969-70, from a better than average history of the MK 48 and surface ships on The Drive.



View attachment 701718

Out the stern?!? Weird!

 

[Yellow Palace]

The idea of surface-launched heavyweights for ASW may have revived a bit around the mid-1970s because a) Mk 46 was not looking all that good at running down fast Soviet subs and b) there was promise of improved ASW sensors like ERAPS that could exploit the range of a heavyweight from a surface ship. So we see designs like the ones I linked that have tubes for Mk 48. I'm not suggesting this was a great idea, but it was a fairly common proposal for quite a while into the mid-1970s or even early 1980s, even after Mk 48 development was officially limited to subs in 1972.

It was actually still getting some discussion as late as 2010 or so for one project (no names, no pack drill) I'm familiar with. Mostly to rule it out as a credible option, but it was something that needed to be included as a possible ASW option.

Another point of reference the 352ft Jose rizal frigate is sitting at about $205m

$145-170m seems more than reasonable for a total for what I am asking for.

You're asking for a higher standard of fit than the JOSE RIZAL class - you're including a lot of that ship's capability upgrades as your baseline. I don't know the details of US vs Philippine Navy construction and outfit standards, but it's reasonable to assume that the USN is at least as onerous. Possibly more so. You'll then be doing the build and systems integration in the US, which will drive up costs further. Offhand - yeah, $300 to $400 million sounds perfectly reasonable.

Warships are expensive, and a lot of the costs are non-obvious in ways that make the kind of bottom-up estimate you're attempting almost impossible. To meaningfully estimate cost that way, you actually need to do a lot of initial design work.

 

[TomS]

It was actually still getting some discussion as late as 2010 or so for one project (no names, no pack drill) I'm familiar with. Mostly to rule it out as a credible option, but it was something that needed to be included as a possible ASW option.

Hmm... It would actually have made a sort of twisted sense for LCS in ASW configuration. Lots of open mission bay space to host them and no VLS for VL-ASROC.

 

[Scott Kenny]

It was actually still getting some discussion as late as 2010 or so for one project (no names, no pack drill) I'm familiar with. Mostly to rule it out as a credible option, but it was something that needed to be included as a possible ASW option.

Hmm... It would actually have made a sort of twisted sense for LCS in ASW configuration. Lots of open mission bay space to host them and no VLS for VL-ASROC.

Not a whole lot of extra Mk48s floating around in inventory, though.

Wiki says 1046 in inventory as of 2001, with LockMart making 50 a year, and the average US boat has space for 24 of them. 24x56=1344, 50x3=150, 4x13=52. On the order of 1600 needed just for one loadout of all current USN subs, not counting anyone we've sold torpedoes to and any expended in SinkExes. Not all subs will have fish onboard, the 1/3 in shipyard won't have any, which saves call it 600. But that still doesn't leave much flex in case of a sudden increase in demand for torpedoes.

I wouldn't have expected more than 2-4 Heavyweights in the LCS mission modules, in that case. Which is probably better than 6x Mk46/54s, but still.

 

[johnpjones1775]

The idea of surface-launched heavyweights for ASW may have revived a bit around the mid-1970s because a) Mk 46 was not looking all that good at running down fast Soviet subs and b) there was promise of improved ASW sensors like ERAPS that could exploit the range of a heavyweight from a surface ship. So we see designs like the ones I linked that have tubes for Mk 48. I'm not suggesting this was a great idea, but it was a fairly common proposal for quite a while into the mid-1970s or even early 1980s, even after Mk 48 development was officially limited to subs in 1972.

It was actually still getting some discussion as late as 2010 or so for one project (no names, no pack drill) I'm familiar with. Mostly to rule it out as a credible option, but it was something that needed to be included as a possible ASW option.

Another point of reference the 352ft Jose rizal frigate is sitting at about $205m

$145-170m seems more than reasonable for a total for what I am asking for.

You're asking for a higher standard of fit than the JOSE RIZAL class - you're including a lot of that ship's capability upgrades as your baseline. I don't know the details of US vs Philippine Navy construction and outfit standards, but it's reasonable to assume that the USN is at least as onerous. Possibly more so. You'll then be doing the build and systems integration in the US, which will drive up costs further. Offhand - yeah, $300 to $400 million sounds perfectly reasonable.

Warships are expensive, and a lot of the costs are non-obvious in ways that make the kind of bottom-up estimate you're attempting almost impossible. To meaningfully estimate cost that way, you actually need to do a lot of initial design work.

So your issue is that because the rizal is under armed for its size that somehow means a smaller ship cannot manage a similar level of armament?

 

[Scott Kenny]

So your issue is that because the rizal is under armed for its size that somehow means a smaller ship cannot manage a similar level of armament?

We're saying that you want more combat systems than the Rizal, so your planned ship will be more expensive than the Rizal. Hull size is not an indicator of ship cost.

Compare the Sumner and Gearing classes of DDs in WW2. As best I can figure out, despite a 14ft stretch amidships, the Gearing class was the same price as the Sumner class because all the systems on the Gearings were the same as the Sumners.

 

[johnpjones1775]

So your issue is that because the rizal is under armed for its size that somehow means a smaller ship cannot manage a similar level of armament?

We're saying that you want more combat systems than the Rizal, so your planned ship will be more expensive than the Rizal. Hull size is not an indicator of ship cost.

Compare the Sumner and Gearing classes of DDs in WW2. As best I can figure out, despite a 14ft stretch amidships, the Gearing class was the same price as the Sumner class because all the systems on the Gearings were the same as the Sumners.

So your issue is that because the rizal is under armed for its size that somehow means a smaller ship cannot manage a similar level of armament?

We're saying that you want more combat systems than the Rizal, so your planned ship will be more expensive than the Rizal. Hull size is not an indicator of ship cost.

Compare the Sumner and Gearing classes of DDs in WW2. As best I can figure out, despite a 14ft stretch amidships, the Gearing class was the same price as the Sumner class because all the systems on the Gearings were the same as the Sumners.

Sensors and weapons are definitely the most expensive bits, but again most of those sensors and weapons systems have been accounted for and priced out, so I’m not really sure where exactly your concern about the price sky rocketing beyond that of the rizal is coming from.

CSM is the only part of the equation I haven’t been able to price out in regards to that portion, there’s no reason to believe a low end CMS would suddenly add $45m more cost to each hull.

And yeah a 14ft difference in length isn’t likely to make a big difference in price, especially during a time defense contractors seemed more patriotic and less greedy.

Today I wouldn’t be surprised if that 14ft added an extra $1m at least

 

[Scott Kenny]

Sensors and weapons are definitely the most expensive bits, but again most of those sensors and weapons systems have been accounted for and priced out, so I’m not really sure where exactly your concern about the price sky rocketing beyond that of the rizal is coming from.

Long history of ships always costing significantly more than originally predicted, usually because of the Fire Control System or Combat Management System and integrating all the different weapons.

CSM is the only part of the equation I haven’t been able to price out in regards to that portion, there’s no reason to believe a low end CMS would suddenly add $45m more cost to each hull.

Have you been paying attention to new ship construction? There's always been a surprise $50-100mil extra in integration costs, even when the systems have been in service forever.

And yeah a 14ft difference in length isn’t likely to make a big difference in price, especially during a time defense contractors seemed more patriotic and less greedy.


Today I wouldn’t be surprised if that 14ft added an extra $1m at least

Depends entirely on what you put in that 14ft. On the Sumners, that was berthing and fuel, no new combat systems belowdecks, so basically all empty space plus or minus some extra pipe and ductwork. Topside was rearranged AA guns, which were Government Furnished Equipment. And GFE is not usually listed in the purchase price of any ship. If you've been onboard a ship, they repeated a few frames amidships (which can actually happen by accident, the USS Henry M Jackson has one extra frame compared to all the other Ohio class).

 

[Yellow Palace]

Sensors and weapons are definitely the most expensive bits, but again most of those sensors and weapons systems have been accounted for and priced out, so I’m not really sure where exactly your concern about the price sky rocketing beyond that of the rizal is coming from.

Okay.

Let's say you want a water heater installed in your new house. You can go and order one from a manufacturer for, oh, $1,000. That's the price you're looking at. Will $1,000 get you it installed? Heck no. You've still got to pay for the labour and parts to fit the thing. Multiply that up across every single system on the ship. Including the ones you haven't even thought of. Going through and adding up the list price of the components (and these things don't actually have list prices anyway!) doesn't get you even close to the true cost of the ship.

What Scott is talking about is something else again (which, as a defence contractor, I can't entirely support - but can't entirely disagree with either!) - namely overruns. Even if you do manage to contract this thing for, say, $350 million, the chances are that there'll be something unforeseen that drives it up. Maybe the shipyard underbids to get the contract. Maybe the Navy decides they want to add in requirements halfway through. Maybe there's a global shortage of turboencabulators that drives up the price and delays the program. That isn't because contractors are 'unpatriotic', it's because naval shipbuilding is complex and expensive.

I literally do this stuff for a living. There are projects I have worked on, and which I am currently working on, which are actively being discussed on this forum. You cannot do a bottom-up estimate of this kind without doing a full concept design for the ship. At the level of detail you're looking at, comparison to basis ships is appropriate.

The RIZAL class is comparable in size, but complex, than what you're proposing. Therefore your ship will cost more. That is an unavoidable fact of life. Naval ships have been complex and expensive for a very long time.

 

[johnpjones1775]

Sensors and weapons are definitely the most expensive bits, but again most of those sensors and weapons systems have been accounted for and priced out, so I’m not really sure where exactly your concern about the price sky rocketing beyond that of the rizal is coming from.

Long history of ships always costing significantly more than originally predicted, usually because of the Fire Control System or Combat Management System and integrating all the different weapons.

CSM is the only part of the equation I haven’t been able to price out in regards to that portion, there’s no reason to believe a low end CMS would suddenly add $45m more cost to each hull.

Have you been paying attention to new ship construction? There's always been a surprise $50-100mil extra in integration costs, even when the systems have been in service forever.

And yeah a 14ft difference in length isn’t likely to make a big difference in price, especially during a time defense contractors seemed more patriotic and less greedy.


Today I wouldn’t be surprised if that 14ft added an extra $1m at least

Depends entirely on what you put in that 14ft. On the Sumners, that was berthing and fuel, no new combat systems belowdecks, so basically all empty space plus or minus some extra pipe and ductwork. Topside was rearranged AA guns, which were Government Furnished Equipment. And GFE is not usually listed in the purchase price of any ship. If you've been onboard a ship, they repeated a few frames amidships (which can actually happen by accident, the USS Henry M Jackson has one extra frame compared to all the other Ohio class).

In the US yeah there is regularly extra unexpected costs.
However the USN can easily mitigate or prevent these massive cost overruns, by putting a ceiling on overruns the gov’t will pay for before the company has to eat any other overruns.

Over runs are largely not an issue of materials or systems or subsystems, they’re a result of corporate greed.

 

[johnpjones1775]

Sensors and weapons are definitely the most expensive bits, but again most of those sensors and weapons systems have been accounted for and priced out, so I’m not really sure where exactly your concern about the price sky rocketing beyond that of the rizal is coming from.

Okay.

Let's say you want a water heater installed in your new house. You can go and order one from a manufacturer for, oh, $1,000. That's the price you're looking at. Will $1,000 get you it installed? Heck no. You've still got to pay for the labour and parts to fit the thing. Multiply that up across every single system on the ship. Including the ones you haven't even thought of. Going through and adding up the list price of the components (and these things don't actually have list prices anyway!) doesn't get you even close to the true cost of the ship.

What Scott is talking about is something else again (which, as a defence contractor, I can't entirely support - but can't entirely disagree with either!) - namely overruns. Even if you do manage to contract this thing for, say, $350 million, the chances are that there'll be something unforeseen that drives it up. Maybe the shipyard underbids to get the contract. Maybe the Navy decides they want to add in requirements halfway through. Maybe there's a global shortage of turboencabulators that drives up the price and delays the program. That isn't because contractors are 'unpatriotic', it's because naval shipbuilding is complex and expensive.

I literally do this stuff for a living. There are projects I have worked on, and which I am currently working on, which are actively being discussed on this forum. You cannot do a bottom-up estimate of this kind without doing a full concept design for the ship. At the level of detail you're looking at, comparison to basis ships is appropriate.

The RIZAL class is comparable in size, but complex, than what you're proposing. Therefore your ship will cost more. That is an unavoidable fact of life. Naval ships have been complex and expensive for a very long time.

If the shipyard underbids you write the contract so the yard eats any overruns beyond say 10%.
So yards can be punished for underbidding. When they see that contract either they’ll rescind their fraudulent bid, or they’ll rebid to what they think it will actually be.

 

[Yellow Palace]

Funnily enough, those tactics have been tried. It's almost as though government procurement officials are just as imaginative as some guy on a forum. Go in hard with that line, and the yards will refuse to accept any risk at all, so will put in enormously high prices. Most of that risk won't materialise, so they'll make equally enormous profit. But it would be fiscally irresponsible of them to do otherwise.

Again, think like you're building a house. If you tell the contractor you think he's a thieving bastard who's lying through his teeth to get the job, so he's got to eat any overruns, one of two things will happen. Either he'll walk off the job, or he'll demand a lot more than the going rate. Either way, you'll be unhappy. And word will get around to all the other contractors, who'll treat you exactly the same way.

You can try and rein in cost in various ways. But you simply have to accept that if you want a house - or ship - with the features you've specified, you have to pay the going rate. You simply cannot get the ship that you're describing at the price you're aiming for.

 

[johnpjones1775]

Funnily enough, those tactics have been tried. It's almost as though government procurement officials are just as imaginative as some guy on a forum. Go in hard with that line, and the yards will refuse to accept any risk at all, so will put in enormously high prices. Most of that risk won't materialise, so they'll make equally enormous profit. But it would be fiscally irresponsible of them to do otherwise.

Again, think like you're building a house. If you tell the contractor you think he's a thieving bastard who's lying through his teeth to get the job, so he's got to eat any overruns, one of two things will happen. Either he'll walk off the job, or he'll demand a lot more than the going rate. Either way, you'll be unhappy. And word will get around to all the other contractors, who'll treat you exactly the same way.

You can try and rein in cost in various ways. But you simply have to accept that if you want a house - or ship - with the features you've specified, you have to pay the going rate. You simply cannot get the ship that you're describing at the price you're aiming for.

These yards only exist because of government contracts.
They give too large of estimates because they’re butthurt means they go out of business.
Or better yet reopen government yards and build navy ships in navy yards.

 

[Scott Kenny]

What Scott is talking about is something else again (which, as a defence contractor, I can't entirely support - but can't entirely disagree with either!) - namely overruns. Even if you do manage to contract this thing for, say, $350 million, the chances are that there'll be something unforeseen that drives it up.

I'd been meaning that integration always costs more than anyone thought it would, and always takes longer. As a friend who built race cars said, "the last 10% of project takes 90% of the project time."

Some change in build between whatever radar and FCS and weapons? Redo your integration, because some frackwit outside your control changed something. Even worse when that frackwit writes spaghetti code.

Funnily enough, those tactics have been tried. It's almost as though government procurement officials are just as imaginative as some guy on a forum. Go in hard with that line, and the yards will refuse to accept any risk at all, so will put in enormously high prices. Most of that risk won't materialise, so they'll make equally enormous profit. But it would be fiscally irresponsible of them to do otherwise.

Again, think like you're building a house. If you tell the contractor you think he's a thieving bastard who's lying through his teeth to get the job, so he's got to eat any overruns, one of two things will happen. Either he'll walk off the job, or he'll demand a lot more than the going rate. Either way, you'll be unhappy. And word will get around to all the other contractors, who'll treat you exactly the same way.

You can try and rein in cost in various ways. But you simply have to accept that if you want a house - or ship - with the features you've specified, you have to pay the going rate. You simply cannot get the ship that you're describing at the price you're aiming for.

These yards only exist because of government contracts.
They give too large of estimates because they’re butthurt means they go out of business.
Or better yet reopen government yards and build navy ships in navy yards.

For PC sized ships, many of the yards that had bid on things in the 1970s were up in the great lakes, and were often idle half the year. So they wanted something to build that they could knock out fairly quickly in the summer and then go back to maintaining the lake cargo ships over winter when the lakes are frozen over and the cargo ships would be idle.

Almost every one of them got tired of the USN changing requirements partway through design and read the USN the Riot Act over it. Then have refused to bid on a USN project ever since.

The USN is terrible about not freezing a design, and ordering changes in the middle of construction that require ripping out half of what has already been done. All the public hate and discontent about the RN carriers? That's normal in the USN.

 

[johnpjones1775]

What Scott is talking about is something else again (which, as a defence contractor, I can't entirely support - but can't entirely disagree with either!) - namely overruns. Even if you do manage to contract this thing for, say, $350 million, the chances are that there'll be something unforeseen that drives it up.

I'd been meaning that integration always costs more than anyone thought it would, and always takes longer. As a friend who built race cars said, "the last 10% of project takes 90% of the project time."

Some change in build between whatever radar and FCS and weapons? Redo your integration, because some frackwit outside your control changed something. Even worse when that frackwit writes spaghetti code.

Funnily enough, those tactics have been tried. It's almost as though government procurement officials are just as imaginative as some guy on a forum. Go in hard with that line, and the yards will refuse to accept any risk at all, so will put in enormously high prices. Most of that risk won't materialise, so they'll make equally enormous profit. But it would be fiscally irresponsible of them to do otherwise.

Again, think like you're building a house. If you tell the contractor you think he's a thieving bastard who's lying through his teeth to get the job, so he's got to eat any overruns, one of two things will happen. Either he'll walk off the job, or he'll demand a lot more than the going rate. Either way, you'll be unhappy. And word will get around to all the other contractors, who'll treat you exactly the same way.

You can try and rein in cost in various ways. But you simply have to accept that if you want a house - or ship - with the features you've specified, you have to pay the going rate. You simply cannot get the ship that you're describing at the price you're aiming for.

These yards only exist because of government contracts.
They give too large of estimates because they’re butthurt means they go out of business.
Or better yet reopen government yards and build navy ships in navy yards.

For PC sized ships, many of the yards that had bid on things in the 1970s were up in the great lakes, and were often idle half the year. So they wanted something to build that they could knock out fairly quickly in the summer and then go back to maintaining the lake cargo ships over winter when the lakes are frozen over and the cargo ships would be idle.

Almost every one of them got tired of the USN changing requirements partway through design and read the USN the Riot Act over it. Then have refused to bid on a USN project ever since.

The USN is terrible about not freezing a design, and ordering changes in the middle of construction that require ripping out half of what has already been done. All the public hate and discontent about the RN carriers? That's normal in the USN.

yeah there’s fault on both sides because the constant changes do also end up adding cost.
Also we need to repeal the law that requires ships be built in the US, even if only as a threat to those yards.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Also we need to repeal the law that requires ships be built in the US, even if only as a threat to those yards.

That I disagree with.

Every country should be able to build and maintain the industries necessary for its own defense. In fact, I would argue that any country not doing so is a military alliance away from not existing.

Even Iran, North Korea, and Russia.

 

[johnpjones1775]

Also we need to repeal the law that requires ships be built in the US, even if only as a threat to those yards.

That I disagree with.

Every country should be able to build and maintain the industries necessary for its own defense. In fact, I would argue that any country not doing so is a military alliance away from not existing.

Even Iran, North Korea, and Russia.

I agree, but there isn’t much difference between not being able to build your own ships at all, and barely being able to build your own ships, and being completely unable to do so in an affordable manner.

But as I said, my goal doing so would be to force the US firms to lower prices to remain competitive. The US yards won’t simply refuse to lower prices and hand over all their business to a South Korean or Japanese shipyard.

 

[Yellow Palace]

I agree, but there isn’t much difference between not being able to build your own ships at all, and barely being able to build your own ships, and being completely unable to do so in an affordable manner.

But as I said, my goal doing so would be to force the US firms to lower prices to remain competitive. The US yards won’t simply refuse to lower prices and hand over all their business to a South Korean or Japanese shipyard.

They will if they can't make money on it. They'll shut the company down, lay off the workers, and sell the site for a shopping centre if that's a better return for the shareholders.

It doesn't matter how much you play hardball with the contractor. You cannot get a $350 million ship for $150 million. Even if you build it in a government yard.

If you want to buy a ship for $150 million, buy one that costs that much.

 

[johnpjones1775]

I agree, but there isn’t much difference between not being able to build your own ships at all, and barely being able to build your own ships, and being completely unable to do so in an affordable manner.

But as I said, my goal doing so would be to force the US firms to lower prices to remain competitive. The US yards won’t simply refuse to lower prices and hand over all their business to a South Korean or Japanese shipyard.

They will if they can't make money on it. They'll shut the company down, lay off the workers, and sell the site for a shopping centre if that's a better return for the shareholders.

It doesn't matter how much you play hardball with the contractor. You cannot get a $350 million ship for $150 million. Even if you build it in a government yard.

If you want to buy a ship for $150 million, buy one that costs that much.

No one said anything about build ships for 1/3 of what they cost.
However every new program of the last 30 years has ballooned in price well beyond the initial estimates.

 

[Arjen]

well beyond the initial estimates

Common causes when overpromising and underdelivering: changing specifications on previously agreed work, spectacularly bad estimates. Both problems can be fixed - if you really want to.
"Optimism and stupidity are nearly synonymous" - Hyman G Rickover

 

[BullpupRafale]

well beyond the initial estimates

Common causes when overpromising and underdelivering: changing specifications on previously agreed work, spectacularly bad estimates. Both problems can be fixed - if you really want to.
"Optimism and stupidity are nearly synonymous" - Hyman G Rickover

Problem with that is it is in interest of shareholders of those companies as it results in greater revenue and more profits.
Since billions of USD are invested in a project, people that have no technical knowledge make those project accepted.
If they had the knowledge and expertise then those would have been cancelled at its root before any investments.

 

[Arjen]

people that have no technical knowledge

... who, even if they do consult experts, don't listen to them.