Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook

Grey Havoc

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
16,999
Reaction score
6,636
Via the CDR Salamander blog:
 

bobbymike

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
11,347
Reaction score
2,946

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
14,743
Reaction score
3,715

Moose

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2010
Messages
1,564
Reaction score
694
Well that can't be good.
Mainly because it's already happened twice in the last 5 years
 

Grey Havoc

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
16,999
Reaction score
6,636
Meant to post this article about Naval Yard funding ages ago:

Argh, where have my wits gone of late!
 

Grey Havoc

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
16,999
Reaction score
6,636

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
14,743
Reaction score
3,715
Well that can't be good.
Mainly because it's already happened twice in the last 5 years
Sounds like a case of "keep asking the question until we get the answer we want".
 

jsport

what do you know about surfing Major? you're from-
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
3,757
Reaction score
1,438
If only any of these promises could be believable. Defense budgets will continue to fall under these folks.. Sealift is so far behind we need a selective service just for manning Strategic Mobility. There have been realistic proposals of massive re-manning of Strategic Mobility. Likewise, a huge amount of resourcing is necessary for real Strategic Mobility. Such a massive but realistic, rethink (ships, airlift, rail systems, hardening, security, cybersecurity etc. ) is beyond even the realm of imagination in the current context of either party.

Using transports for arsenal planes.:( ..tankers during missions to limited degree maybe..
 

Ainen

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Aug 25, 2011
Messages
85
Reaction score
64
32 mk.41
36 MRSAM
2x21 RAM(forward one appears to be 12-cell one, though)
---(3 layers of missile-based air defense, +VL ASROC and Strike)
127/64 Vulcano + 2x35mm (apparently, millennium - i.e. CIWS)
---(layer of gun defense+ASuW+gunfire)
2x2 DEW(laser+microwave)
---(layer of direct energy weapons)
2x2 Seaspider
---(layer of anti-torpedo torpedoes)

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

Even with its full sensor suite, it's fair to guess that its weapon loadout alone will be more expensive than the ship itself. But it's really glorious in its madness.
 

Josh_TN

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 4, 2019
Messages
1,201
Reaction score
802
I don’t know what the displacement is, but the stability and living conditions must suck. When they say designed for the Baltic, I think they mean magazine, weapons, and DC have been enhanced by sacrificing endurance and blue water sea keeping. But for the environment the Poles operate in that’s probably a good fit. Ironically it reminds me of how stuffed to the gills Soviet surface combatants were (are), except the Soviets put no effort into damage control.
 

Pioneer

Seek out and close with the enemy
Senior Member
Joined
May 22, 2006
Messages
2,155
Reaction score
690
Thanks for the article bobbymike

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

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

Regards
Pioneer
 

Attachments

  • USN_USMC Light Amphibious Warship study.jpg
    USN_USMC Light Amphibious Warship study.jpg
    54.9 KB · Views: 24

Hood

ACCESS: Top Secret
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2006
Messages
2,697
Reaction score
3,250
The A-300 makes the Type 31e look....lame.

But on the serious side, the A-300 has plenty of options, I doubt Poland would deck it out with all the goodies featured here, the cost would be massive for one thing, but its good to have placeholders to plug and play newer systems later on.
The design doesn't look too cramped, all the midships weapons look to be above deck so the only deck penetrating VLS is the Mk 41.
 

TomS

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
4,980
Reaction score
2,568
Thanks for the article bobbymike

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

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

Regards
Pioneer

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

The premise behind the LAW is that it is not for opposed landings, but for moving marine units around to unoccupied islands.
 

Josh_TN

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 4, 2019
Messages
1,201
Reaction score
802
I’d still want a SeaRAM and some SRBOC/Nukla. There’s no reason to be easy prey to the first MPA/helo/corvette that trips over you.
 

TomS

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
4,980
Reaction score
2,568
I’d still want a SeaRAM and some SRBOC/Nukla. There’s no reason to be easy prey to the first MPA/helo/corvette that trips over you.

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

Pioneer

Seek out and close with the enemy
Senior Member
Joined
May 22, 2006
Messages
2,155
Reaction score
690
Thanks for the article bobbymike

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

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

Regards
Pioneer

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

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

Regards
Pioneer
 

Josh_TN

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 4, 2019
Messages
1,201
Reaction score
802
I’d still want a SeaRAM and some SRBOC/Nukla. There’s no reason to be easy prey to the first MPA/helo/corvette that trips over you.

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

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

It might be that LAW is intended to land marine weapons for rapidly deterring the PRC in a lead up to an invasion or else reinforcing Taiwan once an invasion was already underway.
 

uk 75

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2006
Messages
3,823
Reaction score
2,868
Much better to use SSNs to stop the Chinese Navy leaving its ports. They have negligible ASW.
Selling AEGIS to Taiwan would help screw up Chinese airstrikes.
If you have to fight a ground war on Taiwan you have already lost.
 

Grey Havoc

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
16,999
Reaction score
6,636

 

Firefinder

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Oct 6, 2019
Messages
218
Reaction score
332
Much better to use SSNs to stop the Chinese Navy leaving its ports. They have negligible ASW.
For now, they are literally working on making it better.

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

Give them another 10 years?

The SSNs will be needing to work far harder for their pay.
 

Josh_TN

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 4, 2019
Messages
1,201
Reaction score
802
It's a hard game to get into when you don't have institutional knowledge. Would they even know what a Virginia sounds like? I'm guessing they focus on the active sonar game, at least with surface units. Even the USN seems to be leaning that way.
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
14,743
Reaction score
3,715
It's a hard game to get into when you don't have institutional knowledge. Would they even know what a Virginia sounds like? I'm guessing they focus on the active sonar game, at least with surface units. Even the USN seems to be leaning that way.
Towards banging away with active sonar instead of passive? Why would you think that?
 

Josh_TN

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 4, 2019
Messages
1,201
Reaction score
802
It's a hard game to get into when you don't have institutional knowledge. Would they even know what a Virginia sounds like? I'm guessing they focus on the active sonar game, at least with surface units. Even the USN seems to be leaning that way.
Towards banging away with active sonar instead of passive? Why would you think that?

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

TomS

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
4,980
Reaction score
2,568
It's a hard game to get into when you don't have institutional knowledge. Would they even know what a Virginia sounds like? I'm guessing they focus on the active sonar game, at least with surface units. Even the USN seems to be leaning that way.
Towards banging away with active sonar instead of passive? Why would you think that?

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

The FFG-62s have the same sonars there are supposed to be in the LCS ASW kit, which is both the TB-37 towed array (operates in both active and passive modes, a departure from the older passive-only TACTASS) and a separate SQS-62 variable depth sonar (active). So yeah, the evidence points toward increased use of active modes.
 

jsport

what do you know about surfing Major? you're from-
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
3,757
Reaction score
1,438

uk 75

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2006
Messages
3,823
Reaction score
2,868
The debate between High and Low end surface ships is one familar to all Navies. The numbers game is great for politicians and journalists but a balanced fleet requires a clear idea of what you want it to do.
Emphasising ASW as the RN did in the Cold War can result in ships which have difficulty coping with air or surface threats.
But are surface ships the most effective means of countering an enemy fleet if you have SSN and strike aircraft available.
Assuming that the PLAN is "the enemy fleet in being" a balanced US Navy needs to focus on which units of the PLAN are serious opponents rarher than its size.
 

GruntFox

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
May 22, 2021
Messages
95
Reaction score
60
Here's the thing, Congress is getting back to its 'starve the military' mentality. We'll need a significant budget (and wage) increases to help alleviate the problems that the US military has with retention.
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
14,743
Reaction score
3,715
Here's the thing, Congress is getting back to its 'starve the military' mentality.

Of course it is. Look who's in charge. On top of that they're compromised by China.
 

skyblue

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Sep 20, 2009
Messages
58
Reaction score
38
Here's the thing, Congress is getting back to its 'starve the military' mentality.

Of course it is. Look who's in charge. On top of that they're compromised by China.
This is not a Q-anon forum.
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
14,743
Reaction score
3,715
Here's the thing, Congress is getting back to its 'starve the military' mentality.

Of course it is. Look who's in charge. On top of that they're compromised by China.
This is not a Q-anon forum.
Why would you think that it was?
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Top