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

Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook

TomS

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
4,591
Reaction score
1,727
mk48 production was already stopped and restarted once before. Honestly I'm not remotely worried about the USN having enough of those; the PLAN would run out of ships and subs long before the US ran out of Mk48s with the current inventory. I'm hoping that a follow on is in the works; it seems to me the USN could benefit from something quieter.

I don't even think this is even stopping production (aside from a temporary gap), it's just moving production. I see SAIC just got orders for a bunch of Mk 48 components, so production is clearly still happening.
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,759
Reaction score
1,976
mk48 production was already stopped and restarted once before. Honestly I'm not remotely worried about the USN having enough of those; the PLAN would run out of ships and subs long before the US ran out of Mk48s with the current inventory. I'm hoping that a follow on is in the works; it seems to me the USN could benefit from something quieter.

Yeah but if you lose your industrial base you can't make NEW designs. The Mk48 is OLD. Minuteman 3 situation with no replacement in sight.
 

Firefinder

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Oct 6, 2019
Messages
104
Reaction score
140
Welp the MK48 ADCAP torpedo and MK41 VLS system factories are being shuttered, again for the MK41...


Sounds like a real estate issue, primarily. Mk 41 obviously has extensive orders booked and in the pipeline, between continuing DDG-51 production, FFG-62, and overseas buyers. But LM are looking to move the line to another facility elsewhere that presumably has unused floor space, so they can sell the Middle River plant. And they are talking about relocating staff who want to move, which means they aren't eliminating the Mk 41 production capacity.

Same for the Mk 48.
For the Mk41 and the FFG I can see the Navy tell the yard to make a slight mod to fit the MK57 instead. It is roughly the same size to the MK41 mods outside of the height...

Which would fix the missile size issue and pretty well future proof the FFGs for the next 30 years...
 

TomS

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
4,591
Reaction score
1,727
For the Mk41 and the FFG I can see the Navy tell the yard to make a slight mod to fit the MK57 instead. It is roughly the same size to the MK41 mods outside of the height...

I don't think that's accurate. The figures I have (see links below) say the Mk 57 is significantly wider than the Mk 41 (170 inches versus 125) while the length is just a few inches different and the depth is about a foot deeper. But the kicker is that the Mk 57 module is 4 cells, not 8 cells. So a 1-1 replacement of Mk 41 with Mk 57 means cutting the missile loadout in half.

 

Josh_TN

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 4, 2019
Messages
742
Reaction score
374
mk48 production was already stopped and restarted once before. Honestly I'm not remotely worried about the USN having enough of those; the PLAN would run out of ships and subs long before the US ran out of Mk48s with the current inventory. I'm hoping that a follow on is in the works; it seems to me the USN could benefit from something quieter.

Yeah but if you lose your industrial base you can't make NEW designs. The Mk48 is OLD. Minuteman 3 situation with no replacement in sight.
The Mod7 was introduced in 2006 and production was restarted in 2016. It didn't seem to be a problem. As for industrial base, lockmart just made a torpedo 6 1/2" wide, so it seems like scaling to a heavyweight wouldn't be problematic technology wise. I'd like to see the USN adopt something electrically driven for the sake of quieting the fish; using an internal combustion engine is always going to be noisy even with the sound isolation and muffler of the Mod 6/7. But there are lots of companies that specialize in electric underwater propulsion for UUVs; it shouldn't be problematic to adopt a higher output, higher speed motor to heavyweight body.
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,759
Reaction score
1,976
mk48 production was already stopped and restarted once before. Honestly I'm not remotely worried about the USN having enough of those; the PLAN would run out of ships and subs long before the US ran out of Mk48s with the current inventory. I'm hoping that a follow on is in the works; it seems to me the USN could benefit from something quieter.

Yeah but if you lose your industrial base you can't make NEW designs. The Mk48 is OLD. Minuteman 3 situation with no replacement in sight.
The Mod7 was introduced in 2006 and production was restarted in 2016. It didn't seem to be a problem. As for industrial base, lockmart just made a torpedo 6 1/2" wide, so it seems like scaling to a heavyweight wouldn't be problematic technology wise. I'd like to see the USN adopt something electrically driven for the sake of quieting the fish; using an internal combustion engine is always going to be noisy even with the sound isolation and muffler of the Mod 6/7. But there are lots of companies that specialize in electric underwater propulsion for UUVs; it shouldn't be problematic to adopt a higher output, higher speed motor to heavyweight body.
Does make me wonder what they could do with modern LiPo technology.
 

Josh_TN

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 4, 2019
Messages
742
Reaction score
374
Lithium batteries probably can't compete with the energy density of Otto II, but I think there's advantages to having a second torpedo type with a more quiet launch/run and more variable speed for closer targets. I can't imagine the 20nm+ range of Mk48 is gong to get used much in a real shooting match, at least not against any kind of peer submarine.
 

jsport

what do you know about surfing Major? you're from-
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
2,424
Reaction score
457

helmutkohl

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Nov 29, 2010
Messages
478
Reaction score
615
strangely that site wont let me scroll to read more. anyone else with that problem?

in any case judging from the title and the first few paragraphs.. makes sense to me.
the L-class ships, despite being LHDs, are nearly as heavy as a Charles De Gaulle carrier and could be optimized to perhaps carry as much (or slightly less) F-35Bs in pure aircraft carrier mode.. as well as having the ability to function as an LHD too.

why not just buy more Ls if they wanna have more light carriers?
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,759
Reaction score
1,976
strangely that site wont let me scroll to read more. anyone else with that problem?

in any case judging from the title and the first few paragraphs.. makes sense to me.
the L-class ships, despite being LHDs, are nearly as heavy as a Charles De Gaulle carrier and could be optimized to perhaps carry as much (or slightly less) F-35Bs in pure aircraft carrier mode.. as well as having the ability to function as an LHD too.

why not just buy more Ls if they wanna have more light carriers?
As long as they don't cut into the CVN buy I don't have a problem with that. It's when idiot politicians start thinking an LHA is a CVN that costs less that we get into trouble.
 

helmutkohl

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Nov 29, 2010
Messages
478
Reaction score
615
on the topic of small carriers

assuming this picture of the Juan Carlos (and I assume its the same for the Canberra, and the Turkish ships)
gSTS5ha.png

Edh3xR6WsAEZYKx.png


the absolute maximum fixed wing combat aircraft carried in a carrier configuration would be about

Trieste: 23 F-35s
JC: 22 F-35s

I've read the USS America is about 20 but not sure if the below deck space is being optimally configured.
 

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
13,813
Reaction score
3,701

Moose

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2010
Messages
1,390
Reaction score
377
While I agree with McGrath that the county's naval infrastructure deserves to be addressed during this period of investment, I think he's making some mistakes with how he frames the argument and presents his case that undermine a good cause. I don't think it's determinative one way or the other, I just wish navalists in general were better at making this case.

It is quite arguable that the surface fleet needs the Naval Yards back even more.
Both the surface and subsurface fleets need yard investment period, but the conventionally-powered surface fleet can use an array of commerical yards, and non-US yards at times, whereas the nukes can only use EB and NN beyond the Navy's own yards.
 
Last edited:

isayyo2

Lurker alert
Joined
Nov 24, 2011
Messages
249
Reaction score
322
The next iteration of the SCAR/AR concept should be to arm the MH-60S with a legitimate antiship cruise missile. The effective range of the missile would more than double the surface warfare commander’s reach. Expanding the SCAR/AR concept, an MH-60R could detect and classify a contact, transmit the picture in real time to the surface warfare commander for authority, and order the accompanying MH-60S to launch the missile from a completely different location.
Very nice
 

bobbymike

ACCESS: USAP
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
10,709
Reaction score
1,772

Josh_TN

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 4, 2019
Messages
742
Reaction score
374

Navy considering alternatives to LUSV, packing amphibs, commercial designs more with long-range missiles

The Navy, which last fall proposed a $3.6 billion, five-year plan to launch a fleet of Large Unmanned Surface Vehicles packed with long-range missiles, is now conducting an analysis to determine if an LUSV is the most appropriate platform to add offensive punch to the surface fleet -- an assessment mandated by Congress and which the service aims to complete by October

So glad Congress called them out on this. I think an unmanned firing unit is just a bad idea. The tech isn’t there yet and the weapons themselves are high value even if the ship isn’t. The MUSV makes a lot more sense as a disposable EW and sensor platform that can also be expended as a decoy. It also will allow for a low cost, low risk platform to test unmanned operational theories. LUSV is a bridge to far.
 

Similar threads

Top