Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook

bobbymike said:

Austin Bay's On PointTime for Beltway Admirals to Think About War 2025, Not Paper Fleet 2045

strategypage.com strategypage.com
Click to expand...

It seems like a silly idea to essentially rush a brand new series of new FACs to production in the next few years to cover a short term firepower gap. The wargame the article mentions determined that basing missiles on ships was about the least efficient way to introduce additional firepower to the region given the long reload times. In the timeframe the article is discussing, about all that can be done is to stockpile PGMs, harden facilities as much as practical, and train for dispersed fighting. In the USN's case in particular, I think it should get as many Tomahawks, LRASMs, and MALD-Ns to the fleet as production lines can to maximize its long range striking power. On a more mundane level, more money should be provided for training and maintenance to get the maximum number of platforms combat worthy - the submarine force in particular is suffering. Building a brand new ship type based on an unproven doctrine with "existing weapons" (what exactly could they be equipped with other than Harpoon?) seems completely pointless.

EDIT: quoted the wrong posted article
 
Josh_TN said:
It seems like a silly idea to essentially rush a brand new series of new FACs to production in the next few years to cover a short term firepower gap. The wargame the article mentions determined that basing missiles on ships was about the least efficient way to introduce additional firepower to the region given the long reload times. In the timeframe the article is discussing, about all that can be done is to stockpile PGMs, harden facilities as much as practical, and train for dispersed fighting. In the USN's case in particular, I think it should get as many Tomahawks, LRASMs, and MALD-Ns to the fleet as production lines can to maximize its long range striking power. On a more mundane level, more money should be provided for training and maintenance to get the maximum number of platforms combat worthy - the submarine force in particular is suffering. Building a brand new ship type based on an unproven doctrine with "existing weapons" (what exactly could they be equipped with other than Harpoon?) seems completely pointless.

EDIT: quoted the wrong posted article
Click to expand...

The idea that a new program start in 2023 could result in ships in the fleet in 2025 borders on delusional. Even setting aside the budgetary, programmatic, and industrial impossibilities, where exactly are the crews going to come from for these ships?
 
TomS said:
The idea that a new program start in 2023 could result in ships in the fleet in 2025 borders on delusional. Even setting aside the budgetary, programmatic, and industrial impossibilities, where exactly are the crews going to come from for these ships?
Click to expand...
Powerpoints wouldn't even be done by 2025.
 
TomS said:
The idea that a new program start in 2023 could result in ships in the fleet in 2025 borders on delusional.
Click to expand...
No, it's straight up delusional. It's physically impossible to achieve that, even if the US bought something like a Saar 6 design. First in class are always late to deliver because the workers haven't figured out the tricks to building that ship yet.

TomS said:
Even setting aside the budgetary, programmatic, and industrial impossibilities, where exactly are the crews going to come from for these ships?
Click to expand...
Very large enlistment bonuses, and probably a pay increase to go with them.
 
Firefinder said:
Is it really awarding when they are the only Yard able to build the Burkes?
Click to expand...
Even sole source awards are "awards," but this was legitimately a contest. Bath got three, HII got six. The Navy's strategy for awarding major combatants is that both yards get enough work to keep going and then they compete for the hulls beyond that minimum. HII definitely won this round, Bath is still struggling to get back to where it wants to be after some bad breaks and bad management left them in poor shape.

The yearly breakdown is 1 for each in 23, 24, and 26. HII got both for 25 and one for 27. The second for 27 will be awarded later, either by exercising an option from the current contract or as part of the next multi-year buy. There are navalists who want to increase the pace to 3 hulls a year, which would mean each yard gets one and then they compete for the third. But the industry's still rebuilding and needs more investment to get there.

EDIT: USNI has more, including the detail, which wasn't reported elsewhere, that the contracts include options for up to 6 more hulls between the two shipyards.
 
Last edited:
Good news for the Flight I's

www.defensenews.com

Navy extends service lives of four more destroyers

Each warship will now serve 40 years instead of the expected 35.
www.defensenews.com www.defensenews.com

“The original 35-year life of the (Arleigh Burke) class was based on an expectation that they would become obsolete before they got too old to maintain,” he said. “With increasingly digital Aegis, combat system upgrades are getting easier and less expensive.”
Click to expand...
 
Extension on a case by case basis based on cost seems reasonable. ships in this class still easily outgun any adversary that isn’t the PLAN; they wouldn’t need to be brought up to a state of the art standard to be effective outside the WestPac. You could probably use the FFGX SPY6 radars, though I assume they will go for a larger installation.
 
Josh_TN said:
Extension on a case by case basis based on cost seems reasonable. ships in this class still easily outgun any adversary that isn’t the PLAN;
Click to expand...
The case by case seems to be whether the DDGs were upgraded to Aegis Baseline 9, which includes a fairly intense HM&E period as well.
 
What really helps the Burkes here over the Spruances and Ticos is the lack of Aliniumiun Superstucture.

That cuts down on a WHOLE lot of issues that put a hard limit on how much sea time a Tico could do. Cracking and Corrision issues are the two big one that basically kept that class from being able to last any longer.

The Burke does not have that, making them slightly easier to repair and keep in service...

So long as the Navy you know.

ALLOW THEM FUCKING TIME FOR REPAIRS.
 
sferrin said:
Hypersonic weapons. ABMs. Also, don't get stuck in the mindset of only having one size of cell. And you need the cells first. Nobody is going to build a weapon for a non-existent cell. And you can always put a small missile in a large cell. The reverse is not true.

Just for some perspective. The one on the left is a Mk41. Then Mk57, SK VLS (K-VLS II), and then China. If you don't think there isn't the potential to be seriously outgunned I don't know what to tell you. Also, China is able to fit 112 cells on a smaller hull than Zumwalt, with it's 80 smaller cells.

View attachment 642460

View attachment 642461
Click to expand...



Roughly the same size / displacement as a Type 055.

"Based on the existing Sejong the Great-class the new AEGIS destroyers will feature several improvements including improved combat systems that can detect and track targets at greater distances and anti-ballistic missile capability with Raytheon’s SM-3 Block IB interceptors.

The KDX-III Batch II will be fitted with SM-2 Block IIIB as well and, possibly, the new SM-6 “multi-mission missile” capable of long-range Fleet Air Defense, Sea-Based Terminal defense, and Anti-Surface Warfare. The decision to procure SM-6 has not been made yet and will depend on budget.

According to our South Korean sources, the KDX III Batch II ships will feature a total of 88 vertical launch system (VLS) cells:
  • 48x Mk41 VLS for US-made missiles
  • 16x K-VLS
  • 24x K-VLS II
K-VLS will be used to deploy K-SAAM (Korean Surface to Air Anti Missile), replacing the RIM-116 Rolling Airframe Missile (RAM). It features inertial mid-course guidance and a dual microwave and infrared homing seeker for terminal guidance. K-VLS will also deploy Hong Sang Eo (Red Shark) rocket-based torpedo (K-ASROC) and Haeryong Tactical Surface Launch Missile (TSLM) land attack cruise missile.

K-VLS II are larger cells currently being developed by Hanwha to launch the future long-range surface-to-air missile (150 Km range) Cheongung 3 (also known as L SAM). Naval News learned from a source at LIG Nex1, that the naval L SAM (which is still in conceptual phase) will only have minor modifications compared to the land-based variant. L SAM is intended to replace SM-2 in the ROK Navy. K-VLS II will also likely be used to launch the new supersonic anti-ship missile.

Compared to the Batch I, which sports 16 SSM-700K Haeseong (C-Star) anti ship missiles, the Batch II ships will “only” have 8 of them.

While early renderings of KDX III Batch II ships showed them fitted with a RAM missile launcher, the destroyers will actually get the Phalanx CIWS as their last line of defense, alongside soft kill decoys (Rheinmetall MASS decoy launchers)."


F4xlZxJaAAAPpdw.jpg
 
Last edited:
sferrin said:
K-VLS II are larger cells currently being developed by Hanwha to launch the future long-range surface-to-air missile (150 Km range) Cheongung 3 (also known as L SAM). Naval News learned from a source at LIG Nex1, that the naval L SAM (which is still in conceptual phase) will only have minor modifications compared to the land-based variant. L SAM is intended to replace SM-2 in the ROK Navy. K-VLS II will also likely be used to launch the new supersonic anti-ship missile.
Click to expand...
Any idea how much bigger the KVLS-2 cells are? 25"? 30"? 40"?
 
Scott Kenny said:
Any idea how much bigger the KVLS-2 cells are? 25"? 30"? 40"?
Click to expand...
I think they might be over 1m (so 40") but this is all we have so far.

1693410934336.png

However, if you look at this model (inset of upper picture), assuming it's scaled properly, you can see that 4 KVLS-II > 8 Mk41 in width, so 0.9+m is a very conservative estimate.

1693411171565.png

Aha, this is what I was looking for (click to make bigger). 1 module is 4 VLS = 3.0x2.4x9.8m!

1693411736331.png

But, it gets bigger.

1693411677664.png
 
Last edited:
a question on ship design.

is there any reason why the proposed frigates for the US thats based on the Italian design, is not using an integrated mast? Ive noticed this on several South Korean and Japanese ships as well.

not they are not capable of it, the LCS and Zummwalt has them, as does the Mogami in Japan.
Ive heard a variety of rumors, such as the company that built them in the US is gone, to that they offer minimal RCS reduction, etc
 
helmutkohl said:
a question on ship design.

is there any reason why the proposed frigates for the US thats based on the Italian design, is not using an integrated mast? Ive noticed this on several South Korean and Japanese ships as well.

not they are not capable of it, the LCS and Zummwalt has them, as does the Mogami in Japan.
Ive heard a variety of rumors, such as the company that built them in the US is gone, to that they offer minimal RCS reduction, etc
Click to expand...
One is that the big radars that the Constellation-class is carrying are mounted on the deckhouse, and are fixed AESAs. The FREMM design is using rotating antennas up in the integrated mast. Another issue is that the European radars use different frequencies than their US counterparts, so it would take a fresh batch of R&D to get the right mast skins transparent to the US frequencies instead of the Euro freqs.
 
And not just radars. The masts on the FFG-62 appear to be related to those on the DDG-51, and they carry a ton of other systems like CEC and other datalinks. Engineering all of those into an integrated mast is a bunch of work, and limits future growth.

The USN is working toward actual integrated masts with multi-function apertures/antennas (cf Topside) but it's really hard. It was supposed to happen in DD-21 but really didn't. Instead you get a bunch of separate flush antennas, which eats up a bunch of surface area.

And honestly, the returns aren't that great. FFG-62 isn't ultra stealthy like the Zumwalts to begin with so the mast isn't a big extra signature.

PS: LCS (either version) doesn't really have an integrated mast. They have the 3d radar in a conical enclosure on the top of the superstructure but they both have masts with other sensors and links above that.
 
TomS said:
Fair. But we can develop a remarkable ability to improvise in an actual conflict. We might surprise ourselves.
Click to expand...

At-sea testing to begin this year.

www.navalnews.com

SecNav Pushes Towards TRAM Trials in 2024 - Naval News

The US Navy is preparing for TRAM at-sea trials in 2024, a capability to enable ship missiles reloading at sea...
www.navalnews.com www.navalnews.com

Speaking at the Surface Navy Association (SNA) annual symposium in Arlington, Virginia, SecNav Carlos Del Toro said that, since announcing (at the SNA event in 2023) the plan to develop and test the capability to re-arm surface ships at sea, the Transportable Re-Arming Mechanism (TRAM) system has continued development, with funding secured to conduct testing in 2024.
Click to expand...

I can't help noting that the rig looks very similar to the system that was demonstrated in the 1980s. I might even believe it's the same hardware, tidied up a bit.


Compare these two images, almost 40 years apart:

1705001117256.png

1705001143149.png

Edit: Confirmed. This is the exact same hardware first tested c. 1988.

www.dvidshub.net

Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Franchetti Witnesses Combat Readiness Efforts at Naval Surface Warfare Center, Port Hueneme Division

Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) Adm. Lisa Franchetti (fourth from left) watches a demonstration of the Transferrable Rearming Mechanism, or TRAM, at the Underway Replenishment Test Site at Naval Surface Warfare Center, Port Hueneme Division (NSWC PHD) onboard Naval Base Ventura County in Port...
www.dvidshub.net www.dvidshub.net

1705004526163.png
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom