• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook

Moose

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2010
Messages
1,023
Reaction score
37
The switch to screws + independent DTs is interesting, and suggests at least one LCS-based FFG(X) team doesn't believe they're the clear favorites, but LM's still got a planing monohull rather than a traditional deep, ocean-going V. I'd be interested to know how LM expects it to handle across the range of FFG(X) operating conditions, as opposed to LCS's "we don't care if the ride sucks so long as it's fast!" requirement I imagine the Navy has some desires re: stability and crew comfort.
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
8,781
Reaction score
146
https://news.usni.org/2018/11/23/panel-navy-may-choose-new-ballistic-missile-subs-355-ship-fleet

The Navy could be forced to make hard choices sooner rather than later when it comes to finding the money to replace its aging ballistic missile submarines or reach its goal of having a fleet of 355 warships, a panel of security and budgetary experts said this week.

When asked by USNI News what the future holds for fleet size and ballistic missile submarines now that the Democrats control the House, Frank Rose, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and former assistant secretary of state for arms control, he said: “There is not enough money” for both, and “priorities need to be taken.”

Rose and Jim Miller, a former undersecretary of Defense for policy, came down firmly on the side of building the Columbia-class ballistic missile submarines, the replacements for the current Ohio-class, in setting priorities for Navy spending.

For the U.S., the ballistic missile submarines “secures the second strike” in event of a nuclear attack. “It really is the backbone of our nuclear force now and for the next 70 to 80 years,” Rose said.
Sometime in the next 6 months the US GDP will surpass $21 Trillion with a federal budget of $4.2 Trillion. One report stated for the 355 plan (incl. Columbia) the Navy would need another $15 Billion a year or 4/10th's of 1% of the federal budget. :'(
 

marauder2048

"I should really just relax"
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
2,325
Reaction score
69
I thought the whole point of the National Sea-Based Deterrence Fund was so that SSBN construction
didn't come out of the Navy's overall shipbuilding budget.
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
8,781
Reaction score
146
Don’t think it ever went for approval as in an appropriation bill.
 

Moose

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2010
Messages
1,023
Reaction score
37
The House, Senate, and Navy have all indicated well ahead of November that they expected a flat 2019, and the President's 2019 budget request (submitted ahead of the election) is a flatline.
marauder2048 said:
I thought the whole point of the National Sea-Based Deterrence Fund was so that SSBN construction
didn't come out of the Navy's overall shipbuilding budget.
The fund exists under 10 USC 2218a, and the Navy is using it to pay for the new boomers. However, the Legislature has never given the fund a budget, in fact the HASC has tried to kill it entirely more than once during the past 3 years. As a result, te Pentagon has had to fill it by taking money out somewhere in their budget, and thus far have only taken from the shipbuilding account.

The fund's authority gives the Navy a bit more security with the SSBN money (once the money is in there its not easily taken out) and makes block buys easier, so they'll continue using it as long as they can. But the Pentagon leadership won't take money from the other services to fill it, and the Congress won't create a dedicated funding stream, so keeping COLUMBIA class on track means cannibalizing other Navy priorities and so far it's been shipbuilding.

The Republican Party has dominated 3 branches of government, 2 of which have direct hand in where the money goes, and the tools to secure a funding stream for the boomers without kneecapping other shipbuilding programs have been there the whole time. Moreover, a number of Democrats represent shipbuilding states or districts and have pleaded, often hand-in-hand with Republicans with shipbuilding constituencies, with the Committee chairs and Leaderships for the fund to get its budget.
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
8,781
Reaction score
146
Moose said:
The House, Senate, and Navy have all indicated well ahead of November that they expected a flat 2019, and the President's 2019 budget request (submitted ahead of the election) is a flatline.
marauder2048 said:
I thought the whole point of the National Sea-Based Deterrence Fund was so that SSBN construction
didn't come out of the Navy's overall shipbuilding budget.
The fund exists under 10 USC 2218a, and the Navy is using it to pay for the new boomers. However, the Legislature has never given the fund a budget, in fact the HASC has tried to kill it entirely more than once during the past 3 years. As a result, te Pentagon has had to fill it by taking money out somewhere in their budget, and thus far have only taken from the shipbuilding account.

The fund's authority gives the Navy a bit more security with the SSBN money (once the money is in there its not easily taken out) and makes block buys easier, so they'll continue using it as long as they can. But the Pentagon leadership won't take money from the other services to fill it, and the Congress won't create a dedicated funding stream, so keeping COLUMBIA class on track means cannibalizing other Navy priorities and so far it's been shipbuilding.

The Republican Party has dominated 3 branches of government, 2 of which have direct hand in where the money goes, and the tools to secure a funding stream for the boomers without kneecapping other shipbuilding programs have been there the whole time. Moreover, a number of Democrats represent shipbuilding states or districts and have pleaded, often hand-in-hand with Republicans with shipbuilding constituencies, with the Committee chairs and Leaderships for the fund to get its budget.
The DOD budget has gone up considerably under GOP control but there’s a thing called the Senate where Democrats have demanded dollar for dollar increases in domestic spending for each dollar of defense increase. But as my chart illustrates massive entitlement spending is crowding out all other spending making a true defense buildup near impossible.
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
1,910
Reaction score
8
Moose said:
The Republican Party has dominated 3 branches of government, 2 of which have direct hand in where the money goes, and the tools to secure a funding stream for the boomers without kneecapping other shipbuilding programs have been there the whole time. Moreover, a number of Democrats represent shipbuilding states or districts and have pleaded, often hand-in-hand with Republicans with shipbuilding constituencies, with the Committee chairs and Leaderships for the fund to get its budget.
Not quite. As you may be aware, busting the BCA caps requires a 60 vote threshold in the Senate where the GOP has never had that level of votes from within. Therefore in order to obtain a 1 or 2 year budget deal, the GOP (in this case) has to reach over the aisle and negotiate with the Democrats and this limits how much they can apportion for defense given other considerations. If the GOP cannot convince enough dems in the senate to reach that 60 vote threshold, they fall back to the BCA levels which will be tens of Billions of $$ below where the last few budgets have been. This is not unique, Obama had to do this dance as well. If they obtain a 2-year budget deal next year this would see us through to the end of the Budget caps which would expire after FY21.

And no, Trump has not yet submitted the FY20 budget (FY-19 funding is in place under the prior 2-year deal) and the DOD is preparing two, both $733 Billion and $700 Billion with the last minute bargain with Trump and the OMB likely landing them somewhere in between after everything is said and done.

Funding the triad should not be an issue for the Democrats given that everything from the SSBN, to the LRSO even had the backing of Obama. I can understand some of the other elements not appealing to the Dems but these three programs are something that even the Obama administration looked into and approved as necessary for future deterrence.
 

jsport

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
1,289
Reaction score
29
IMHO again the only surface combatant (outside LCS) worth still putting resources on is something along the size of CG21 which has the SWAP large enough for future requirements for large counter-Hypersonic/Hypersonic msles, next generation EMTC guns, next generation DEW (likely PBW ie KE effects from DE-requires a reactor), EM based surface and subsurface barriers, numbers of UAVs (armed swarms of size /range). Much like the original LCS concept w/ modular capability payloads. As developments may call replaceable modules.

DDG, FFG, CG are antiquated concepts. Even carrier defense made need to be done smaller USVs in order for large combatants to operate independently presenting an adversary too many and too distributed large dilemmas to deal with..
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
1,910
Reaction score
8
CNO Richardson Expects that New Acquisition Models Will Field Ships, Advanced Weapons ‘ASAP’


The Navy will buy the first version of its next large surface combatant – a centerpiece of the Future Surface Combatant family of systems that also includes a small combatant and two sizes of an unmanned or optionally unmanned combatant – in 2023. That five-year contract, akin to the five-year contracts the Navy uses today for its Arleigh Burke-class destroyers, will be followed by another contract in 2028.

Though the Navy will have to move out on this large surface combatant in just four years, much is still unknown or undecided about this new ship. In August, Director of Surface Warfare Rear Adm. Ron Boxall (OPNAV N96) told USNI News that the Navy would not conduct an analysis of alternatives for the ship, but would rather start with the Arleigh Burke-class destroyer capability development document, have discussions with the fleet and with industry about how the next large surface combatant would need to be modified from that DDG-51 starting point, and then make decisions from there. The six-month window Boxall said he needed to make early decisions should be wrapping up next month.

Richardson said he’s not necessarily expecting that the 2023 design will be the “final” large surface combatant design, but instead would adhere to the idea of using an 80-percent solution today and iterating as technology advances.

“For the 2023 we’re going to have to converge on something that’s pretty well known right now. We’re not going to be able to meet that timeline and design some kind of brand new hull form. And I’ll tell you what, naval architecture’s been around for a while, so we sort of know how that works, so I’ve got a lot of confidence that we’ll get to something that will be perfectly adequate in 2023. Beyond that, who knows,” he said.
“So we’ll have the naval architects working in parallel, and so as these two streams move together, boy, when something’s mature enough – they say, holy cow, this is really going to be a lot more capable and also we can do this with confidence in cost and schedule – then we’ll just incorporate that it. So whether that’s at the next five-year mark or whatever it turns out to be, hard to say, but we’ll keep these things going.”
 

jsport

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
1,289
Reaction score
29
bring_it_on said:
CNO Richardson Expects that New Acquisition Models Will Field Ships, Advanced Weapons ‘ASAP’


The Navy will buy the first version of its next large surface combatant – a centerpiece of the Future Surface Combatant family of systems that also includes a small combatant and two sizes of an unmanned or optionally unmanned combatant – in 2023. That five-year contract, akin to the five-year contracts the Navy uses today for its Arleigh Burke-class destroyers, will be followed by another contract in 2028.

Though the Navy will have to move out on this large surface combatant in just four years, much is still unknown or undecided about this new ship. In August, Director of Surface Warfare Rear Adm. Ron Boxall (OPNAV N96) told USNI News that the Navy would not conduct an analysis of alternatives for the ship, but would rather start with the Arleigh Burke-class destroyer capability development document, have discussions with the fleet and with industry about how the next large surface combatant would need to be modified from that DDG-51 starting point, and then make decisions from there. The six-month window Boxall said he needed to make early decisions should be wrapping up next month.

Richardson said he’s not necessarily expecting that the 2023 design will be the “final” large surface combatant design, but instead would adhere to the idea of using an 80-percent solution today and iterating as technology advances.

“For the 2023 we’re going to have to converge on something that’s pretty well known right now. We’re not going to be able to meet that timeline and design some kind of brand new hull form. And I’ll tell you what, naval architecture’s been around for a while, so we sort of know how that works, so I’ve got a lot of confidence that we’ll get to something that will be perfectly adequate in 2023. Beyond that, who knows,” he said.
“So we’ll have the naval architects working in parallel, and so as these two streams move together, boy, when something’s mature enough – they say, holy cow, this is really going to be a lot more capable and also we can do this with confidence in cost and schedule – then we’ll just incorporate that it. So whether that’s at the next five-year mark or whatever it turns out to be, hard to say, but we’ll keep these things going.”
Any reason the hull form of DDG as basis for the family rather than the larger CG or is nothing going to be larger than a destroyer?
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,947
Reaction score
285
jsport said:
bring_it_on said:
CNO Richardson Expects that New Acquisition Models Will Field Ships, Advanced Weapons ‘ASAP’


The Navy will buy the first version of its next large surface combatant – a centerpiece of the Future Surface Combatant family of systems that also includes a small combatant and two sizes of an unmanned or optionally unmanned combatant – in 2023. That five-year contract, akin to the five-year contracts the Navy uses today for its Arleigh Burke-class destroyers, will be followed by another contract in 2028.

Though the Navy will have to move out on this large surface combatant in just four years, much is still unknown or undecided about this new ship. In August, Director of Surface Warfare Rear Adm. Ron Boxall (OPNAV N96) told USNI News that the Navy would not conduct an analysis of alternatives for the ship, but would rather start with the Arleigh Burke-class destroyer capability development document, have discussions with the fleet and with industry about how the next large surface combatant would need to be modified from that DDG-51 starting point, and then make decisions from there. The six-month window Boxall said he needed to make early decisions should be wrapping up next month.

Richardson said he’s not necessarily expecting that the 2023 design will be the “final” large surface combatant design, but instead would adhere to the idea of using an 80-percent solution today and iterating as technology advances.

“For the 2023 we’re going to have to converge on something that’s pretty well known right now. We’re not going to be able to meet that timeline and design some kind of brand new hull form. And I’ll tell you what, naval architecture’s been around for a while, so we sort of know how that works, so I’ve got a lot of confidence that we’ll get to something that will be perfectly adequate in 2023. Beyond that, who knows,” he said.
“So we’ll have the naval architects working in parallel, and so as these two streams move together, boy, when something’s mature enough – they say, holy cow, this is really going to be a lot more capable and also we can do this with confidence in cost and schedule – then we’ll just incorporate that it. So whether that’s at the next five-year mark or whatever it turns out to be, hard to say, but we’ll keep these things going.”
Any reason the hull form of DDG as basis for the family rather than the larger CG or is nothing going to be larger than a destroyer?
How did you arrive at that conclusion? (They'd be f--king idiots to stick with the same sized 5lb sack, pardon my French. Then again, they seem to have washed their hands of the Zumwalt hull, so they just might be.)
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
1,910
Reaction score
8
The Zumwalt and the San Antonio class have both been mentioned in the past with the SA class being presented in the capacity on a number of occasions. There is obviously quite a bit difference in their displacement and other attributes compared to each other and to the DDG-51. It would be foolish to rule out the Zumwalt hull from this at this stage and I'm not sure that this has not happened. BIW has developed a capability and modernized to support the ship class and that will largely transition over to the Flight III and can very well come back and support something based on it post 2025.
 

jsport

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
1,289
Reaction score
29
bring_it_on said:
The Zumwalt and the San Antonio class have both been mentioned in the past with the SA class being presented in the capacity on a number of occasions. There is obviously quite a bit difference in their displacement and other attributes compared to each other and to the DDG-51. It would be foolish to rule out the Zumwalt hull from this at this stage and I'm not sure that this has not happened. BIW has developed a capability and modernized to support the ship class and that will largely transition over to the Flight III and can very well come back and support something based on it post 2025.
Genuine multipurpose and displacement necessary says San Antonio.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,947
Reaction score
285
jsport said:
bring_it_on said:
The Zumwalt and the San Antonio class have both been mentioned in the past with the SA class being presented in the capacity on a number of occasions. There is obviously quite a bit difference in their displacement and other attributes compared to each other and to the DDG-51. It would be foolish to rule out the Zumwalt hull from this at this stage and I'm not sure that this has not happened. BIW has developed a capability and modernized to support the ship class and that will largely transition over to the Flight III and can very well come back and support something based on it post 2025.
Genuine multipurpose and displacement necessary says San Antonio.
Lacking in the speed and survivability dept. compared to a Zumwalt. (And by the time you stuff all the gear onboard to make it comparable, well, can you say, "cha-ching"?)
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
1,910
Reaction score
8
It will be interesting to see how the Navy price's out a potential SA class based LSC/Cruiser. The variant HII has been taking to the trade shows has a 35 ft AMDR, with an EMRG, 94 cells, and they had plans to offer an IPS solution to meet the power needs for the radar, railguns, DEWs etc. They are claiming that they can potentially generate twice the Zumwalt's power with modifications.

Not sure if the Navy would want a radar of that size but you are still looking at a ship that is quite a bit larger than the Zumwalt and once you factor in the changes required it may not be all that more cheaper. Advantage it has going for it would obviously be size, volume and growth..while a Zumwalt based design would likely be faster and have a lower RCS.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g2e-WxADTRs
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,947
Reaction score
285
A Zumwalt already has 80 Mk57s and could put a bank of Mk41s or NGs Modular Launch System at the aft gun position. (The USN really should put $$$ into developing the NG system. The new Chinese system on the Type 055s is huge compared to even the Mk57s.)
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
1,910
Reaction score
8
sferrin said:
A Zumwalt already has 80 Mk57s and could put a bank of Mk41s or NGs Modular Launch System at the aft gun position.
HII claims their concept is good for 144 MK57s ;). They also claim that with Gas Turbine and IPS they can double the Zumwalt's power generation.

I think there are pros and cons to base it on either of these designs but I have a feeling it will come down to which design (once all the modifications are applied) the Navy thinks will be cheaper.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,947
Reaction score
285
bring_it_on said:
sferrin said:
A Zumwalt already has 80 Mk57s and could put a bank of Mk41s or NGs Modular Launch System at the aft gun position.
HII claims their concept is good for 140 MK57s ;). They also claim that with Gas Turbine and IPS they can double the Zumwalt's power generation.

I think there are pros and cons to base it on either of these designs but I have a feeling it will come down to which design (once all the modifications are applied) the Navy thinks will be cheaper.
You also have to be able to build them at rate. SAs will forever be one at a time (and you have to space in actual San Antonio follow-ons in the line as well). They could second-source Zumwalts at Ingalls. Lastly it would incentivize the USN to finish development of the AGS ammo (and bring it's cost down) so the three DDGs could be a bit more useful.
 

jsport

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
1,289
Reaction score
29
Speed and RCS are antiquated. One has to win the fight immediately not run or hide. The idea manufacturing of anything has to be 'one off' is absurd. If yards are too small. build them up. A Future Surface Combatant must be many things to many missions.

A Vertical gun sending a 8" into trans-atomsphere and back dead ship center will have any opponent crying Uncle in whatever language and w/ one shot.

Nukes are necessary and provide speed anyway.

A large radar is part of 'large is in charge'. Aegis is not big enough.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,947
Reaction score
285
jsport said:
Speed and RCS are antiquated.
You tell the group, "sorry you're on your own. I can't keep up." And RCS is "antiquated"? That would explain why everybody is going for reduced RCS I guess then.

jsport said:
One has to win the fight immediately not run or hide.
So your idea is to be bullet sponge rather than not get hit? Nice.

jsport said:
The idea manufacturing of anything has to be 'one off' is absurd. If yards are too small. build them up.
One-off? What are you talking about?

jsport said:
A Future Surface Combatant must be many things to many missions.
Cha-Ching!

jsport said:
A Vertical gun sending a 8" into trans-atomsphere and back dead ship center will have any opponent crying Uncle in whatever language and w/ one shot.
The vertical barrel disappeared over a decade ago.

jsport said:
Nukes are necessary and provide speed anyway.
Put on a hull designed for speed vs a big tub? Nuclear power isn't magic.

jsport said:
A large radar is part of 'large is in charge'. Aegis is not big enough.
Who's talking about Aegis?
 

jsport

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
1,289
Reaction score
29
Everyone knows multi-spectral sensors and multiple frequencies render radar evasion for huge ships pointless.

Nukes are horsepower and endurance full stop.

The idea FSC is going to escort carriers is also antiquated. The FSC Family of Systems mentioned makes sense as the main FSC ship can not afford to to waste maneuver defending carriers, that has to be small than LCS ships w/ defense mechanisms.

If the US is going rescue populations, which is their main mission these days then SA is only option. Likewise if there is going to be USMC then dispersed landings are the only option in the future then that is SA. Likewise again the more aircraft helios, UAS the more options for the cost ie SA.

Vertical barrels were abandoned for no good reason but politics. Not a war winner.

Defense against ICBMS and hypersonics demand a larger radar and thus a larger ship.

If you think even the most advanced ship can can really out maneuver it's modern threats then we should start joke forum. You either defend against them w/ fast small guns, DEW, EM Armor systems (both surface and subsurface discussed earlier) and anti-torpedo torpedos or you get hit. This is not WWII.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,947
Reaction score
285
jsport said:
Everyone knows multi-spectral sensors and multiple frequencies render radar evasion for huge ships pointless.
That must be why everybody is paying attention reducing RCS then. Because it's pointless.

jsport said:
Nukes are horsepower and endurance full stop.
But they aren't magic.

jsport said:
The idea FSC is going to escort carriers is also antiquated. The FSC Family of Systems mentioned makes sense as the main FSC ship can not afford to to waste maneuver defending carriers, that has to be small than LCS ships w/ defense mechanisms.
We're talking about the Ticoderoga replacement, not a smaller-than-LCS ship.

jsport said:
If the US is going rescue populations, which is their main mission these days then SA is only option. Likewise if there is going to be USMC then dispersed landings are the only option in the future then that is SA. Likewise again the more aircraft helios, UAS the more options for the cost ie SA.
They already have SAs. And they're building the next class.

jsport said:
Vertical barrels were abandoned for no good reason but politics. Not a war winner.
I don't have a dog in that fight. It's minimum range likely isn't stellar however.

jsport said:
Defense against ICBMS and hypersonics demand a larger radar and thus a larger ship.
And you're going to do that with a "smaller than LCS" ship huh?

jsport said:
If you think even the most advanced ship can can really out maneuver it's modern threats then we should start joke forum. You either defend against them w/ fast small guns, DEW, EM Armor systems (both surface and subsurface discussed earlier) and anti-torpedo torpedos or you get hit. This is not WWII.
I hope you don't think maneuverability is only for out maneuvering missiles that are already on top of you.
 

jsport

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
1,289
Reaction score
29
sferrin said:
jsport said:
Everyone knows multi-spectral sensors and multiple frequencies render radar evasion for huge ships pointless.
"That must be why everybody is paying attention reducing RCS then. Because it's pointless."

RCS is a money maker for contractors/ researchers. Too easy to overcome.


jsport said:
Nukes are horsepower and endurance full stop.
But they aren't magic.

jsport said:
The idea FSC is going to escort carriers is also antiquated. The FSC Family of Systems mentioned makes sense as the main FSC ship can not afford to to waste maneuver defending carriers, that has to be small than LCS ships w/ defense mechanisms.
"We're talking about the Ticoderoga replacement, not a smaller-than-LCS ship."

Carriers need only be defended by smaller ships (FSC family not FSC) ready to take the hit..mostly large unmanned bullet stoppers

jsport said:
If the US is going rescue populations, which is their main mission these days then SA is only option. Likewise if there is going to be USMC then dispersed landings are the only option in the future then that is SA. Likewise again the more aircraft helios, UAS the more options for the cost ie SA.
"They already have SAs. And they're building the next class."

So the the FCS based on multi-mission SA hull form, doesnt have to be the same. Shouldnt be, might need to be slightly larger same general form factor.

jsport said:
Vertical barrels were abandoned for no good reason but politics. Not a war winner.
"I don't have a dog in that fight. It's minimum range likely isn't stellar however."

Once you get enough altitude (a completely new EMTC gun) you can do alot things coming down w/ no need for powder.

jsport said:
Defense against ICBMS and hypersonics demand a larger radar and thus a larger ship.
"And you're going to do that with a "smaller than LCS" ship huh?"

Smaller than LCS ship is only a armed for defense bullet stopper for carriers (part of the family but not FSC).

jsport said:
If you think even the most advanced ship can can really out maneuver it's modern threats then we should start joke forum. You either defend against them w/ fast small guns, DEW, EM Armor systems (both surface and subsurface discussed earlier) and anti-torpedo torpedos or you get hit. This is not WWII.
I hope you don't think maneuverability is only for out maneuvering missiles that are already on top of you.

There is little need when one operates well off at standoff in the open ocean to maneuver. If you see your adversary in 2050 timeframe you have already been sunk. Therefore see no need for agile maneuver. Only carrier defenders need extreme maneuver.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,947
Reaction score
285
jsport said:
sferrin said:
jsport said:
Everyone knows multi-spectral sensors and multiple frequencies render radar evasion for huge ships pointless.
"That must be why everybody is paying attention reducing RCS then. Because it's pointless."

RCS is a money maker for contractors/ researchers. Too easy to overcome.


jsport said:
Nukes are horsepower and endurance full stop.
But they aren't magic.

jsport said:
The idea FSC is going to escort carriers is also antiquated. The FSC Family of Systems mentioned makes sense as the main FSC ship can not afford to to waste maneuver defending carriers, that has to be small than LCS ships w/ defense mechanisms.
"We're talking about the Ticoderoga replacement, not a smaller-than-LCS ship."

Carriers need only be defended by smaller ships (FSC family not FSC) ready to take the hit..mostly large unmanned bullet stoppers

jsport said:
If the US is going rescue populations, which is their main mission these days then SA is only option. Likewise if there is going to be USMC then dispersed landings are the only option in the future then that is SA. Likewise again the more aircraft helios, UAS the more options for the cost ie SA.
"They already have SAs. And they're building the next class."

So the the FCS based on multi-mission SA hull form, doesnt have to be the same. Shouldnt be, might need to be slightly larger same general form factor.

jsport said:
Vertical barrels were abandoned for no good reason but politics. Not a war winner.
"I don't have a dog in that fight. It's minimum range likely isn't stellar however."

Once you get enough altitude (a completely new EMTC gun) you can do alot things coming down w/ no need for powder.

jsport said:
Defense against ICBMS and hypersonics demand a larger radar and thus a larger ship.
"And you're going to do that with a "smaller than LCS" ship huh?"

Smaller than LCS ship is only a armed for defense bullet stopper for carriers (part of the family but not FSC).

jsport said:
If you think even the most advanced ship can can really out maneuver it's modern threats then we should start joke forum. You either defend against them w/ fast small guns, DEW, EM Armor systems (both surface and subsurface discussed earlier) and anti-torpedo torpedos or you get hit. This is not WWII.
I hope you don't think maneuverability is only for out maneuvering missiles that are already on top of you.

There is little need when one operates well off at standoff in the open ocean to maneuver. If you see your adversary in 2050 timeframe you have already been sunk. Therefore see no need for agile maneuver. Only carrier defenders need extreme maneuver.
Clearly we have different opinions on the matter. I think this conversation has run it's course.
 

jsport

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
1,289
Reaction score
29
Another SA form factor application

SA wiki pg
Although there is no formal requirement for the BMD variant, HII report unofficial support for it within the US Navy, such that it will be modelled in wargame scenarios in 2016 and 2017. It could accommodate up to 288 Mk41 VLS missile tubes and a radar with 1000 times the sensitivity of the SPY-1D radar of the Burke destroyers.[27]

http://intercepts.defensenews.com/2013/04/hii-shows-off-new-bmd-ship-concept-at-sea-air-space/

PS: An SA based FSC in the amphib dock role must still have cleared adversary ships far from beaches before amphibious raid as future threats to ship will be great, thus the need for genuine heavy bombardment both of sea and land targets. Something only a enhanced effects gun and w/ a deep magazine can do.

Also posted this before and a reason for deep sea bombardment.

https://www.popsci.com/futuristic-chinese-warship-concept-is-making-waves#page-2
 

TinWing

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2006
Messages
888
Reaction score
9
sferrin said:
bring_it_on said:
sferrin said:
A Zumwalt already has 80 Mk57s and could put a bank of Mk41s or NGs Modular Launch System at the aft gun position.
HII claims their concept is good for 140 MK57s ;). They also claim that with Gas Turbine and IPS they can double the Zumwalt's power generation.

I think there are pros and cons to base it on either of these designs but I have a feeling it will come down to which design (once all the modifications are applied) the Navy thinks will be cheaper.
You also have to be able to build them at rate. SAs will forever be one at a time (and you have to space in actual San Antonio follow-ons in the line as well). They could second-source Zumwalts at Ingalls. Lastly it would incentivize the USN to finish development of the AGS ammo (and bring it's cost down) so the three DDGs could be a bit more useful.
It's worth noting that the last Zumwalt was only authorized for the sake of employment at Bath Iron Works, and that was after a lapse of 3 years from the authorization of the first two. With no authorizations since 2011, it's fair to assume that the program will terminate with the third hull and the AGS is not a priority to anyone, including the military contractors.
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
1,910
Reaction score
8
I think that is a moot point because the Navy does not plan to buy a new ship until FY25 so even if they pick something based on the Zumwalt they'll have to develop an acquisition strategy regardless. The ship has sailed on holding the Zumwalt line warm until the LSC went into production so there would be a cost associated with a restart as would be for any plan to establish a multi year LSC purchase if one were to base the design on the SA class assuming that they want to buy 2 ships a year.

I'd rather focus on a re-start, and reducing cost by 20-30% with a decade plus of technology maturity than try to integrate a new power solution, new weapons system, and try to get a much larger ship design cruise a third faster than it does currently as you would if you followed a design based on the SA class.If you can fit 48 MK-41's in place of the aft gun on the Zumwalt, and leave the space reserved for the forward gun for a future EMRG insertion then you have enough capability for a baseline cruiser. This assumes that the mast can accommodate a 18-20 ft. radar which the Navy will likely require at baseline as an incremental improvement.
 

NeilChapman

Interested 3rd party
Joined
Dec 14, 2015
Messages
919
Reaction score
17
sferrin said:
jsport said:
Speed and RCS are antiquated.
You tell the group, "sorry you're on your own. I can't keep up." And RCS is "antiquated"? That would explain why everybody is going for reduced RCS I guess then.
I'm trying to understand this need to "keep up" with the carrier.

What speed does the CBG typically run?

There is some delta of cost between ships that run 22 knots and 30 knots. A 100k ton 30 knot ship is $14B, a 15K ton 30 knot ship is $5-7B and a 22 knot 25k ton ship is ~$1.5B.

What is the price premium of that speed and what else could I do with that money? Can I build more ships for the premium of the "speed" cost and forward deploy them? Do I need that speed with a deeper magazine? In a fight, how close does the LSC need to be to the carrier? Can I spread multiple LSCs around and protect the carrier from some larger distance?
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
1,910
Reaction score
8
Why a 22 knots ship? There has to be some delta between a 10 knots ship and a 22 knots ship. How much can I save if I reduce the requirements down to 10 knots? ;)

A 100k ton 30 knot ship is $14B, a 15K ton 30 knot ship is $5-7B and a 22 knot 25k ton ship is ~$1.5B.
How does cost/ton relate to speed when you are talking about 3 ship classes that are fundamentally different in design, level of technology, and their roles and purpose? As things stand, the SA class cannot support the mission and even if use the Air Defense ship concept that they have been taking to trade-shows as a general ballpark, they still need to find, develop and integrate a new propulsion and power system, make the necessary hull changes to support this mission, integrate a combat system etc so the cost is most definitely not going to be $1.5 Billion or even at the same $/ton level. There are advantages to this design, capacity for Vertical launch cells, a huge radar and range and persistence are among the top few. But it is still a fairly risky and quite a radical upgrade.

On the DDG-1000 what you essentially need to do is remove one or both of the guns, add 48-64 MK41's or fewer MK57 cells, add the 69 RMA AMDR and add AEGIS baseline 10.0 combat suite. The survivability, signature, and power are all already there and baseline margins exist to add a 100-20kW HEL or an EMRG. You can also upgrade these things over time on Flight II and Flight III ships. Risk on this ship is to reduce construction cost through a combination of technology and production quantity/scale. The LCS, FFG(X), DDG-1000, and DDG-51's and the outgoing Ticos all can keep up with a carrier. There needs to be a fairly good reason why the future Cruiser shouldn't match that capability.

I think much like the FFG(X), the Navy has to decide what it wants (an upgraded/more capable LCS or a larger 6000+ ton "Mini DDG") - does it want a ship that has the capacity to support a few iterations of upgrades to AEGIS Baseline 10.0 while accommodating a SPY+25/30 dB radar plus DEWs and plenty of cells to replace a Tico, or whether it wants a significantly larger ship that essentially creates a new ship class with a giant 35 ft. radar and a lot more missiles. There are trade-offs for both but I think it very easy to underestimate the cost of the latter based on the known costs of the SA hull (by underestimating the cost and risk of the mods) while at the same time overestimating the cost of the former (based on Zumwalt contracting that occurred a decade plus ago).
 

Colonial-Marine

Fighting the UAV mafia.
Joined
Oct 5, 2009
Messages
629
Reaction score
6
In a real war situation I can foresee a lot of scenarios where the CVN might want to dash at 30 knots and the key escort of the battlegroup should definitely be able to keep up with that when it occurs.

It concerns me that the US Navy has seemingly lost interest in the EMRG while the PLAN are going on a full publicity tour with theirs regardless of how far along it really is.
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
1,910
Reaction score
8
I believe the Navy funded EMRG at sea test preparation in the FY19 budget. At the moment there really is no ship class where this could go on. If they attempt to integrate it on the DDG-1000 it will likely take a protracted availability period to get it integrated then followed by extensive testing. This even before the ship has had its first combat deployment. It is going to be bad PR at a time when the Navy is going to go to Congress to get two new ship classes funded. It is pretty clear that the Navy is more bullish on HEL than EMRG for now. Perhaps this will change if they do well in additional testing.
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
8,781
Reaction score
146
https://www.navalnews.com/news/2019/02/u-s-navy-issues-rfi-for-large-surface-combatant/

U.S. Navy Issues RFI for Large Surface Combatant

The U.S. Navy issued its Request for Information (RFI) document for the future Large Surface Combatant (LSC). The LSC is likely to replace the ageing Ticonderoga-class of guided missile cruisers as well as possibly the older DDG 51 destroyers.

According to the RFI document, the U.S. Navy’s LSC Program will be a new acquisition program that will leverage the DDG 51 Flight III combat system while identifying and evaluating the integration of non-developmental mechanical and electrical systems into a new or modified hull design, incorporating platform flexibility and growth opportunities to meet future Fleet requirements.

The Navy intends to evaluate the following capability areas for possible integration into the initial LSC baseline:
 

fredymac

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
1,448
Reaction score
66
Couldn't think of anywhere else to put this. Basically, a look at various naval unmanned systems being displayed at the 2019 Sea Air Space symposium.

 

Colonial-Marine

Fighting the UAV mafia.
Joined
Oct 5, 2009
Messages
629
Reaction score
6
The USN should be taking the opportunity to get a 5" gun on the ship like the original FREMM design. It would still have room for the 57mm.
 

Capthale

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Mar 29, 2019
Messages
29
Reaction score
1
Yes two deck guns are needed plus waist guns 25 mm or 30
 

fredymac

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
1,448
Reaction score
66
Another SAS video covering Block V Virginia class sub and Columbia class (3:15 mark), 57mm guided air defense shells, naval Excalibur, and quad copter grenades and even shot gun shells.

 
Top