Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook

jsport said:
https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2..._term=Editorial - Military - Early Bird Brief
Click to expand...


Was on vacation this past week and spotted a Burke just off the side of the road in a seemingly random place and found out there are only two spots on the entire west coast they can actually load weapons on ships:

"For the first time, the planned pier and causeway will be able to accommodate 844-foot-long amphibious assault ships or simultaneously service two guided-missile destroyers.

“That’s very important if you need to move a lot of ships overseas,” Navy spokesperson Gregg Smith said.

Considering the next closest Naval Weapons Station is in Washington, over 1,000 miles from the U.S. Pacific Fleet’s hub in San Diego, the new ammunition pier will raise Seal Beach’s strategic importance for the Navy."

https://www.latimes.com/socal/daily...tory/2020-02-03/navy-breaks-ground-seal-beach
Bit of a shocker to pop out of a town and boom there it is. I expected to see ships when I got to San Diego but was not expecting this some 100 miles north:

1635525974223.png

1635525856018.png

(Obviously I didn't take this but given there was a Burke parked there it's close enough.)
 
muttly said:
How many of their ships will be made obsolete by the new
ships technology?
Click to expand...
Most but that can be use as an advantage.

Real easy to set it up as a drone and loaded it down with deck missile launchers...

Or just shove some jammers on it to make it look scarier on radar.
 
jsport said:
bobbymike said:
https://news.usni.org/2020/06/04/na...m5YoEXFCd4TDiFw0t48qPTuB5xRpzFa6wqqEZYEVEYPd8
Click to expand...
The focus now for the Pentagon is maneuverer warfare, “where we plan on using our forces to create dilemmas for adversaries that prevent them from being successful more than us being able to project power and take over locations of our own choosing. So, this decision-centric move in warfare is going to require us to have a fleet design that reflects some new characteristics different than the characteristics of our previous fleet,”

if you are going to force real dilemmas you will need not just missile magazine LUSVs, but large surface combatants (LSC) which can launch sizeable numbers of semi attritable lg rg UCRAVs (the likes of X-47{~$10m a copy} and the Kratos tube & wing Low Cost Attritable were obsolete 10yrs ago). LSC needs a next gen VGAS which does not make sense for a LUSV. Dilemmas and DMPIs served will put an adversary on their backfoot.

Clark claims to Congress small dispersed ships are going to cause too many dilemmas. Corvettes and smaller are not causing dilemmas. Dispersed standoff LSC able to stay out of range and attack you w/ lng rg guns, UCRAVS, hypersonics will.

Clark says lightly manned Corvettes rather than LUSV, well as long as the junior officer and crew can una.. that thing when in close surface combat. ie a minimally manned SeaTrain concept which deploys modules/LUSVs progressively farther and farther away from close combat until the personnel are close enough to a ESG/ECG group and have left a trail of missile magazines back to the close surface Combat zone or a fast escape ocean going vessel. Exposing even a minimally manned small craft to close surface combat is unnecessary and not well thought out.

T-AKE class ships w/ VLS for launch or combatant reload is a great idea.

In large strokes, that means moving the Navy away from the massed formations centered aircraft carriers and amphibious warships and into smaller groups that will make it harder for adversaries like China and Iran to target.

If Clark is correct that a FA-XX is most likely a derivative of an existing aircraft-Super Hornet or F-22 or even F-35, the carrier is not going to be worth sustaining at the numbers.. ie still need a $9T NDAA for FY2022 or carriers are increasingly not worth the $.

Again if carriers are going to be worth it at all they will need aircraft w/a F-14 like stealth fighter/bomber able dominate the skies when outnumbered, and a A-12 like stealth tactical bomber able to threaten deep strategic tgts..

PS: Can the USN hierarchy be trusted to mature unmanned sea tech when it threatens their careers and post service careers? DARPA (generally not impressed w/ their transition record) may be the only trusted development agent and OSD directly forcing transition to program of record as USN will inhibit.
Click to expand...
reemphasis

The focus now for the Pentagon is maneuverer warfare, “where we plan on using our forces to create dilemmas for adversaries that prevent them from being successful more than us being able to project power and take over locations of our own choosing. So, this decision-centric move in warfare is going to require us to have a fleet design that reflects some new characteristics different than the characteristics of our previous fleet,”

forceing dilemmas requires not just missile magazine LUSVs for reloading these low density VLS ships as there are not suffiicent VLS for defense let alone offense over any length of time. So called "Professionals" that challenge the VLS number would, of course, be relieved or fired for agreeing w/ congressional staffers. These folks want a job after their career w/ the current contractors, of course.

Unmanned can not be absolutely be depended at first. Clark says lightly manned Corvettes rather than LUSV. Some sort of minimally manned SeaTrain LUSV concept firing and or reloading allowing continuous combat, but most importantly allowing MANNED ships to self defend. Genuine M/Simulation of what the USN might be facing around 2050 could size the number and size of minimally manned/LUSV.


PS: Can the USN hierarchy be trusted to mature unmanned sea tech when it threatens their careers and post service careers? A wave of the hand by some USN wonks, claiming LUSV will save the USN, when there are so many unmanned ocean keeping issues, let alone combt w/ damage, lack of comms etc issues to be reesolved is disturbing.
 
jsport said:
forceing dilemmas requires not just missile magazine LUSVs for reloading these low density VLS ships as there are not suffiicent VLS for defense let alone offense over any length of time. So called "Professionals" that challenge the VLS number would, of course, be relieved or fired for agreeing w/ congressional staffers. These folks want a job after their career w/ the current contractors, of course.
Click to expand...
There is a slight problem with having more VLS Cells that EVERYONE seems to be forgetting...

Do we have enough MISSILES for the ones we have?

The Answer is NO.

We barely have enough to get like half of the current VLS filled from what I hear. Not that big of an issue since only a third of the fleet is out doing something, with the other two third either in for repairs with empty cells for safety or in working up training which you dont need a full load to train with.

And from the looks of the budgets I can find and understand, shit latin to me, that is not changing. No new large count orders put in, just the standard keep the factories working amounts of the last 20 years.

Now there is something to say about having the parts that take the longest to build. IE the ships that have VLS, which even at the fastest is a 6 month deal from keel laying to combat.

Meanwhile to build a new Standard or Tomahawk it takes around 8 hours at war production levels. And that can be actived within a few months, mainly just hiring and training up the workforce of the supple chain.

Meaning that even best case we can only have a small stockpile of weapons, worst case is the captains be fighting for who to get the missiles coming in and sortie with empty VLS Modules.

Kinda like the reason why US Carriers only have 60 planes these days instead of 90, cheaper to run and we can rebuild the plane numbers faster then we can build more carriers.
jsport said:
PS: Can the USN hierarchy be trusted to mature unmanned sea tech when it threatens their careers and post service careers? A wave of the hand by some USN wonks, claiming LUSV will save the USN, when there are so many unmanned ocean keeping issues, let alone combt w/ damage, lack of comms etc issues to be reesolved is disturbing.
Click to expand...
THing is that out side of the LCS, we all know how that went, the USN dont do corvettes or smaller ships...

At all.

Every single time the USN get a smaller vessel, Pegasus class, LCS, even the fucking Perrys... It a political snafu. Its doesnt have enough weapons, it not survivable enough, crew hates it, doesnt have enough range*.... Take every single fucking bad thing said about the LCS and it can be applied to every other "SMALL" ship in the navy.

USN and SMALL SHIPS do not get along at all.

*Mainly for this reason, Range. To do any thing the USN need to travel nearly 2,000 PLUS miles. ON THE ATLANTIC SIDE. Pacific side you need 4 to 5k to safely cross unless you want to UNREP the entire way. Most small Corvettes dont have 2000 miles of range, they dont need it cause they messs around near their home waters.

As the LCS shows to get the range the USN NEEDS you end up with a Burke size and costing vessel. And Again I point to how THAT worked for the LCS.

And Yes I will keep using the LCS naysayers points against this cause this is how we got the fucking LCS in the first damn place.

Just replace Corvette and Small ships with LCS in that article and you can start to see the issues it will have.

Edit: Also Combat reloading VLS cells...

HOW? we tried like four different designs and the best one still took 30 minutes to reload 1 VLS cell. The Navy standard for missile reloads in the Arm Launcher days was 60 missile loaded up in a hour. Which is why we dropped VLS combat reloads in the 90s. The Best we can do is like the way we use to load up Polaris and the Soviets their SLBMs into Boomer subs. Find a area out of the combat zone that shelter from the wave and take the day to reload the ship vls farms.
 
Last edited:
Firefinder said:
jsport said:
forceing dilemmas requires not just missile magazine LUSVs for reloading these low density VLS ships as there are not suffiicent VLS for defense let alone offense over any length of time. So called "Professionals" that challenge the VLS number would, of course, be relieved or fired for agreeing w/ congressional staffers. These folks want a job after their career w/ the current contractors, of course.
Click to expand...
There is a slight problem with having more VLS Cells that EVERYONE seems to be forgetting...

Do we have enough MISSILES for the ones we have?

The Answer is NO.

We barely have enough to get like half of the current VLS filled from what I hear. Not that big of an issue since only a third of the fleet is out doing something, with the other two third either in for repairs with empty cells for safety or in working up training which you dont need a full load to train with.

And from the looks of the budgets I can find and understand, shit latin to me, that is not changing. No new large count orders put in, just the standard keep the factories working amounts of the last 20 years.

Now there is something to say about having the parts that take the longest to build. IE the ships that have VLS, which even at the fastest is a 6 month deal from keel laying to combat.

Meanwhile to build a new Standard or Tomahawk it takes around 8 hours at war production levels. And that can be actived within a few months, mainly just hiring and training up the workforce of the supple chain.

Meaning that even best case we can only have a small stockpile of weapons, worst case is the captains be fighting for who to get the missiles coming in and sortie with empty VLS Modules.

Kinda like the reason why US Carriers only have 60 planes these days instead of 90, cheaper to run and we can rebuild the plane numbers faster then we can build more carriers.
jsport said:
PS: Can the USN hierarchy be trusted to mature unmanned sea tech when it threatens their careers and post service careers? A wave of the hand by some USN wonks, claiming LUSV will save the USN, when there are so many unmanned ocean keeping issues, let alone combt w/ damage, lack of comms etc issues to be reesolved is disturbing.
Click to expand...
THing is that out side of the LCS, we all know how that went, the USN dont do corvettes or smaller ships...

At all.

Every single time the USN get a smaller vessel, Pegasus class, LCS, even the fucking Perrys... It a political snafu. Its doesnt have enough weapons, it not survivable enough, crew hates it, doesnt have enough range*.... Take every single fucking bad thing said about the LCS and it can be applied to every other "SMALL" ship in the navy.

USN and SMALL SHIPS do not get along at all.

*Mainly for this reason, Range. To do any thing the USN need to travel nearly 2,000 PLUS miles. ON THE ATLANTIC SIDE. Pacific side you need 4 to 5k to safely cross unless you want to UNREP the entire way. Most small Corvettes dont have 2000 miles of range, they dont need it cause they messs around near their home waters.

As the LCS shows to get the range the USN NEEDS you end up with a Burke size and costing vessel. And Again I point to how THAT worked for the LCS.

And Yes I will keep using the LCS naysayers points against this cause this is how we got the fucking LCS in the first damn place.

Just replace Corvette and Small ships with LCS in that article and you can start to see the issues it will have.

Edit: Also Combat reloading VLS cells...

HOW? we tried like four different designs and the best one still took 30 minutes to reload 1 VLS cell. The Navy standard for missile reloads in the Arm Launcher days was 60 missile loaded up in a hour. Which is why we dropped VLS combat reloads in the 90s. The Best we can do is like the way we use to load up Polaris and the Soviets their SLBMs into Boomer subs. Find a area out of the combat zone that shelter from the wave and take the day to reload the ship vls farms.
Click to expand...
If one doesn't have enough missiles to survive PLAN numbers just give up now or go back to guns..
 
jsport said:
Firefinder said:
jsport said:
forceing dilemmas requires not just missile magazine LUSVs for reloading these low density VLS ships as there are not suffiicent VLS for defense let alone offense over any length of time. So called "Professionals" that challenge the VLS number would, of course, be relieved or fired for agreeing w/ congressional staffers. These folks want a job after their career w/ the current contractors, of course.
Click to expand...
There is a slight problem with having more VLS Cells that EVERYONE seems to be forgetting...

Do we have enough MISSILES for the ones we have?

The Answer is NO.

We barely have enough to get like half of the current VLS filled from what I hear. Not that big of an issue since only a third of the fleet is out doing something, with the other two third either in for repairs with empty cells for safety or in working up training which you dont need a full load to train with.

And from the looks of the budgets I can find and understand, shit latin to me, that is not changing. No new large count orders put in, just the standard keep the factories working amounts of the last 20 years.

Now there is something to say about having the parts that take the longest to build. IE the ships that have VLS, which even at the fastest is a 6 month deal from keel laying to combat.

Meanwhile to build a new Standard or Tomahawk it takes around 8 hours at war production levels. And that can be actived within a few months, mainly just hiring and training up the workforce of the supple chain.

Meaning that even best case we can only have a small stockpile of weapons, worst case is the captains be fighting for who to get the missiles coming in and sortie with empty VLS Modules.

Kinda like the reason why US Carriers only have 60 planes these days instead of 90, cheaper to run and we can rebuild the plane numbers faster then we can build more carriers.
jsport said:
PS: Can the USN hierarchy be trusted to mature unmanned sea tech when it threatens their careers and post service careers? A wave of the hand by some USN wonks, claiming LUSV will save the USN, when there are so many unmanned ocean keeping issues, let alone combt w/ damage, lack of comms etc issues to be reesolved is disturbing.
Click to expand...
THing is that out side of the LCS, we all know how that went, the USN dont do corvettes or smaller ships...

At all.

Every single time the USN get a smaller vessel, Pegasus class, LCS, even the fucking Perrys... It a political snafu. Its doesnt have enough weapons, it not survivable enough, crew hates it, doesnt have enough range*.... Take every single fucking bad thing said about the LCS and it can be applied to every other "SMALL" ship in the navy.

USN and SMALL SHIPS do not get along at all.

*Mainly for this reason, Range. To do any thing the USN need to travel nearly 2,000 PLUS miles. ON THE ATLANTIC SIDE. Pacific side you need 4 to 5k to safely cross unless you want to UNREP the entire way. Most small Corvettes dont have 2000 miles of range, they dont need it cause they messs around near their home waters.

As the LCS shows to get the range the USN NEEDS you end up with a Burke size and costing vessel. And Again I point to how THAT worked for the LCS.

And Yes I will keep using the LCS naysayers points against this cause this is how we got the fucking LCS in the first damn place.

Just replace Corvette and Small ships with LCS in that article and you can start to see the issues it will have.

Edit: Also Combat reloading VLS cells...

HOW? we tried like four different designs and the best one still took 30 minutes to reload 1 VLS cell. The Navy standard for missile reloads in the Arm Launcher days was 60 missile loaded up in a hour. Which is why we dropped VLS combat reloads in the 90s. The Best we can do is like the way we use to load up Polaris and the Soviets their SLBMs into Boomer subs. Find a area out of the combat zone that shelter from the wave and take the day to reload the ship vls farms.
Click to expand...
If one doesn't have enough missiles to survive PLAN numbers just give up now or go back to guns..
Click to expand...
The Missiles numbers are the easiest to fix, buy more, we have the factory capacity. Just not the will to pay for more missiles at a time.

That that doesnt Fix the reason why the Navy is going with the LUSVs.

People say to build ships like them but manned. Leaving out the issues I have layed out with the smaller ships bit...

Here a question.

Man them with who?

The navy is barely meeting recruiting quotes to keep the ships we have. We got ships that are basically running on skeleton crews as is.

CAUSE PEOPLE ARE NOT JOINING.

Like unless they bring back the draft, which is policatal suicided for anyone to even speak of such, the navy barely have the numbers to run. Since China is basically a conscription military with enough volunteers to be picky, they dont have that issue.

The nice thing about the unmanned vessels is that.

They are unmanned.

For the most part they go out and run circles in areas relaying what they see back to five guys in trailer somewhere in either California or some deployed space like Guam or even on a refited Burke or LCS. And those five guys can control several LUSVs at once.

Which kills several birds with one stone.

Get more hulls in the water.
Get a small ship to do simple grunt patrol work with many sensors.
Get more VLS cells out at sea.
Do so reasonably cheap.
And do the above without braking the manpower bank.

Does it have issues?

Yes.

But unless you can come up with a better way to do the listed without increasing manning needs... ITs the best of what we have.
 
Minally manned, will repeat, ocean ships are not easily sustained and especially in extremis.

A wave of the hand by some USN wonks, claiming LUSV will save the USN, when there are so many unmanned ocean keeping issues, let alone combt w/ damage, lack of comms etc issues to be reesolved is disturbing.
 
LUSV and MUSV are worth experimentation. But the concept is hardly proven. Also I feel the USN could was simply accept commercial standards and have large, long endurance ships without much effort. Most super tankers have crews under 20.
 
bobbymike said:
https://wavellroom.com/2019/06/18/chinese-power-projection-arsenal-ships/
Click to expand...
The universal electromagnetic launcher would also launch ballistic and cruise missiles for land attack and anti-ship operations at ranges of up to 1,000 km; ‘electromagnetic rockets’25 for operations between 200 and 600 km; and the electromagnetic railgun would prosecute land and sea targets within a range of 200 km.26

The USN dabbled in EM Launchers and is mentioned somewhere on SPF.
 
Josh_TN said:
LUSV and MUSV are worth experimentation. But the concept is hardly proven. Also I feel the USN could was simply accept commercial standards and have large, long endurance ships without much effort. Most super tankers have crews under 20.
Click to expand...
How well do they deal with damage control from missile hits?
 
sferrin said:
Josh_TN said:
LUSV and MUSV are worth experimentation. But the concept is hardly proven. Also I feel the USN could was simply accept commercial standards and have large, long endurance ships without much effort. Most super tankers have crews under 20.
Click to expand...
How well do they deal with damage control from missile hits?
Click to expand...

Probably better than an unmanned platform at least.

The USN isn’t going to be able to up its hull numbers with fully crewed major surface combatants. It has neither the budget, manpower, nor yard productivity to do so. If tgey want more hulls, they will need to explore other options. Otherwise they make due with FFGX and Burke 3s and that’s it for the next decade and a half.

What do you suggest?
 
Josh_TN said:
LUSV and MUSV are worth experimentation. But the concept is hardly proven. Also I feel the USN could was simply accept commercial standards and have large, long endurance ships without much effort. Most super tankers have crews under 20.
Click to expand...
THe Problem with having small crews is that well...

After a certain point the benefits of having a crew is nullified.

One missile to a ship with 20 crew will sink it just as fast as the same missile to an L/MUSVs. Cause that one missile can easily 1 shot all the crew if they are unlucky.

An lets be real, that will happen nearly every single time.

Part of the reason why most military ships worth the name have more then 100 crews so that will not happen as easily.

And twentry crew can not do damncon and fight a ship. One or the other maybe but... Eyeah it will not be good, and may as well make it a cheap unman deal and let it sink if it gets hit.

Then you have crew shift scheduling.

How many people do you need to be up and running the ship?

Cause you need to have the Wheel manned.

A couple looks out so you dont ran into something. (say 2)

As does the Radars and thats a 5 guy job for the Aegis system. One preface, and a weapon officer.

A few guys on on Sonar. (Call it 3)

Someone to watch the 18-20 year old idiots above.

And a handful of guys in the engines rooms watching those high performances beasts. (4)

So call it 14 crew members at the minimum to by my half guestimation per shift. ON positions that NEED to be man, no if ands or but cause if you not manning say the radar?

Well whats the point of that warship?

Thats not counting the fact you need to have a few shifts which is 8 hours on average, and you are needed to do other things on the ship and other crewmembers have jobs as well. Like the guys running around to make sure everything works or the cooks working near 24/7 to feed the lot. About 160 crew is the miminum that the navies found it can scrap by with, with 200 being the best balance for a 5k to 20k vessel. With the newer Burkes 3 apparently have gear to do that, taken from the LCS and Zumwalt's.

Now what does a supertanker needs man just for comparision sakes...

Wheel, which is optional on newer ships for ocean travel, (1)

Radar (1).

The single engine (1)

So 2-3 man on shift.

So call 15 people on board with 3 spares bodies as back plus the Captain, and a cook maybe...

A slight differences as you can see. A super tanker has less crew cause it has less things that need crewing, which the warship needs cause othersize it be a yacht not a warship.
 
The US Navy is still designed to deal with the Soviet Union in the North Atlantic and Vladivostok.
The change to a capability to support operations against a terrorist threat after Somalia and 9/11 has not made much difference apart from the ill-fated LCS.
The Chinese Navy is still mainly a coastal defence force with a capacity to put together one or two carrier task groups. It has nothing like the naval power of the Soviet Union.
The US Navy needs a balanced fleet of nuclear carrier task groups, nuclear submarines and amphibious assault formations.
Replacing the successful Tico class at one end and the old Perry/Knox classes at the other needs careful thought.
One lesson is that hulls should be as large as possible to fit new weapons systems as they come along.
Ranges need to be as great as possible. Perhaps even nuclear power for new cruisers
 
jsport said:
Forest Green said:
https://twitter.com/x/status/1453829960733503490
Click to expand...
Once again, a reasonable narrative left the station some time ago. Its not a question of who should be fired but who shouldn't be fired. Missile fetishism will render this ship barnacle bait. The USN is turning into a laughing stock. Asia is a widespace much like the incompetence of the USN.
Click to expand...
The Guns havent worked in the last 3 years and Congress will not give Navy the funds to rebuild them to shot army shells.

But they will give funds to give them at least twelve 1000 mile range missiles.

Which is far more useful in the pacific then the guns which need to be within 100 miles of the target. Plus they were strictly surface attack guns, they had no AA capability at all at anypoint of of their design. So the Zumwalt literaly loses no ability to fight. Infacts actually gains some.

Honestly have Raytheon slap on the SPY6 where the Spy4 was to be and the Zumwalt becomes a extremely scary vessel to have as an enemy anywere NEAR you AO.

Only else it needs to spot weld that new towed sonar on it and suddenly that class becomes what it was ment to be.

IF they refit works well enough we might see a BLOCK 2 Zumwalt get order.


Hopefuly the Army new XM913 cannon makes it over to the navy to replace the 30mms, it does needs some better close range weapons, and since it doubles as an AA weapon with guided shells it will give the ship a solid point defense.
 
Firefinder said:
jsport said:
Forest Green said:
https://twitter.com/x/status/1453829960733503490
Click to expand...
Once again, a reasonable narrative left the station some time ago. Its not a question of who should be fired but who shouldn't be fired. Missile fetishism will render this ship barnacle bait. The USN is turning into a laughing stock. Asia is a widespace much like the incompetence of the USN.
Click to expand...
The Guns havent worked in the last 3 years and Congress will not give Navy the funds to rebuild them to shot army shells.

But they will give funds to give them at least twelve 1000 mile range missiles.

Which is far more useful in the pacific then the guns which need to be within 100 miles of the target. Plus they were strictly surface attack guns, they had no AA capability at all at anypoint of of their design. So the Zumwalt literaly loses no ability to fight. Infacts actually gains some.

Honestly have Raytheon slap on the SPY6 where the Spy4 was to be and the Zumwalt becomes a extremely scary vessel to have as an enemy anywere NEAR you AO.

Only else it needs to spot weld that new towed sonar on it and suddenly that class becomes what it was ment to be.

IF they refit works well enough we might see a BLOCK 2 Zumwalt get order.


Hopefuly the Army new XM913 cannon makes it over to the navy to replace the 30mms, it does needs some better close range weapons, and since it doubles as an AA weapon with guided shells it will give the ship a solid point defense.
Click to expand...
And don't forget a pair of guns on top of the hangar as originally planned and maybe a RAM launcher or two. The flight deck and hangar would be useful for all kinds of things.
 
sferrin said:
And don't forget a pair of guns on top of the hangar as originally planned and maybe a RAM launcher or two. The flight deck and hangar would be useful for all kinds of things.
Click to expand...
Those at the moment are 30mm bushmasters. Basically in the same set up as the LCS Surface Warfare modules.

Replace those with the Army XM1913 50mm multipurpose gun with Guide Shells?

Be a Solid point defense. And you get a longer surface attack range as well.

But the Biggest issue with putting things on the flight deck is two fold.

1) its a flight deck, you really cant put much there or less you loss the use of the space as a flight deck.

2) Stealthing. Anything you put there is going to need to be Stealth up. Cause well the Zumwalts has lost some of it its stealth ability cause if the anteana and the like. It still has such a TINY radar section that Navy needs to bolt on reflectors to make sure no one will ram into it in rain or fog.


But if the navy does figure out how to Stealth RAM launcher, or get a VLS style one... I can see on being slap onto the Bow as well, lot of space there... Also thanks to the general ship design without the gunhouses it has a basicaly 270 maybe even 300 degrees of firing arc.
 
I'd honestly revert back to the planned 57mm. With Alamo and the 3P ammo, it's an excellent multi-role gun. Adopting and navalizing an as-yet unproven Army guided round seems like an unneeded risk and expense.

For RAM, I assume a Batch 2 Zumwalt would probably revert to Mk41 VLS (possibly evolved for peripheral installation). On which case, ExLS Host has been tested with RAM Block 2 already. Or the stand-alone version of ExLS instead, which has the advantage of (hopefully) being certified for the Canadian Surface Combatant/Type 26.
 
TomS said:
I'd honestly revert back to the planned 57mm. With Alamo and the 3P ammo, it's an excellent multi-role gun. Adopting and navalizing an as-yet unproven Army guided round seems like an unneeded risk and expense.

For RAM, I assume a Batch 2 Zumwalt would probably revert to Mk41 VLS (possibly evolved for peripheral installation). On which case, ExLS Host has been tested with RAM Block 2 already. Or the stand-alone version of ExLS instead, which has the advantage of (hopefully) being certified for the Canadian Surface Combatant/Type 26.
Click to expand...
Why would you want to take a step back? Anything you can do with a Mk41 you can do with a Mk57. The reverse cannot be said.
 
sferrin said:
TomS said:
I'd honestly revert back to the planned 57mm. With Alamo and the 3P ammo, it's an excellent multi-role gun. Adopting and navalizing an as-yet unproven Army guided round seems like an unneeded risk and expense.

For RAM, I assume a Batch 2 Zumwalt would probably revert to Mk41 VLS (possibly evolved for peripheral installation). On which case, ExLS Host has been tested with RAM Block 2 already. Or the stand-alone version of ExLS instead, which has the advantage of (hopefully) being certified for the Canadian Surface Combatant/Type 26.
Click to expand...
Why would you want to take a step back? Anything you can do with a Mk41 you can do with a Mk57. The reverse cannot be said.
Click to expand...

For the same deck area, you get nearly twice as many rounds in Mk41 compared to Mk57. And given the huge installed base of 21-inch cells, that's going to be the limit for many classes of missiles.

I expect you'd also see a larger cannister (either in MACs or something more refined like the ones you posted earlier) as well in lieu of AGS. That would be for the higher performing BMD or hypersonic strike rounds.
 
TomS said:
sferrin said:
TomS said:
I'd honestly revert back to the planned 57mm. With Alamo and the 3P ammo, it's an excellent multi-role gun. Adopting and navalizing an as-yet unproven Army guided round seems like an unneeded risk and expense.

For RAM, I assume a Batch 2 Zumwalt would probably revert to Mk41 VLS (possibly evolved for peripheral installation). On which case, ExLS Host has been tested with RAM Block 2 already. Or the stand-alone version of ExLS instead, which has the advantage of (hopefully) being certified for the Canadian Surface Combatant/Type 26.
Click to expand...
Why would you want to take a step back? Anything you can do with a Mk41 you can do with a Mk57. The reverse cannot be said.
Click to expand...

For the same deck area, you get nearly twice as many rounds in Mk41 compared to Mk57. And given the huge installed base of 21-inch cells, that's going to be the limit for many classes of missiles.

I expect you'd also see a larger cannister (either in MACs or something more refined like the ones you posted earlier) as well in lieu of AGS. That would be for the higher performing BMD or hypersonic strike rounds.
Click to expand...
The Navy does have designs for being able to Doublepack most MK41 missiles into the larger Mk57. Mainly the Arsocs, SM2s and SM6B1s.

Which will handly double the amount of missiles able to be carried.

Not to mention you can just added...

Four more MK57 modules to the stern farm to bring the tube count up to 96. OR rather 108 assuming 12 hypersonic missiles in 4 VPM type tubes, two VPMs per AGS likely can fit more.

Which is more then enough.

Especailly consider the Navy is on record saying that they dont want ships with more then 128 VLS cells for not having all eggs in single basket effect.

Throw in the fact that we dont have enough missiles to full all cells...

Honestly 80 MK57s with a single missile each, and 4 VPM able to carry 12 HS or 24 tomahawk size missiles in them is more then enough for any threat.
 
Firefinder said:
The Navy does have designs for being able to Doublepack most MK41 missiles into the larger Mk57. Mainly the Arsocs, SM2s and SM6B1s.
Click to expand...

No, the Navy has concepts for how to redesign some missiles to double-pack. SM-2MR could be done, but I think the missile needs a redesign and certifying a new canister would be a ton of work. VL ASROC dual-pack I have not seen, but the booster in VLA is pretty chunky (and getting large numbers of VLA at sea isn't a high priority). SM-6 has a 21-in booster and so cannot possibly double-pack into a 24-in square.

Honestly 80 MK57s with a single missile each, and 4 VPM able to carry 12 HS or 24 tomahawk size missiles in them is more then enough for any threat.
Click to expand...

I'm thinking more about BMD rounds; I doubt 12 KEI type missiles is enough for a new cruiser. But then, this is a new and non-existent missile.
 
Last edited:
My brother in law send me this picture of two Freedom Class LCS getting ready to have the engines repaired. They are taking any space they can to get these ships back in fighting shape. They need more weapons without a doubt. There are two ships, one is kind of hidden.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_1889 - Copy.jpg
    IMG_1889 - Copy.jpg
    167.5 KB · Views: 12
TomS said:
No, the Navy has concepts for how to redesign some missiles to double-pack. SM-2MR could be done, but certifying a new canister would be a ton of work.
Click to expand...
The MK57 needs to have new canister certified anyways, for basically any missile not Tomahawk or SM2, so adding another to the list will not be much work. I have seen official Navy images and wordage for a dual pack MK57 canister before with a list of missiles and the ARSOC and SM6 was on it years. Will post that when I find it.

TomS said:
I'm thinking more about BMD rounds; I doubt 12 KEI type missiles is enough for a new cruiser. But then, this is a new and non-existent missile.
Click to expand...
As is the BMD ships only carry eight SM3, with one of the CG(X) designs having only 12 KEI back when those two programs were a thing. Plus it depends on how big the Modern KIE will be. OG KIE was longer then any of the correct surface launch Hypersonic missiles.
 
sferrin said:
jsport said:
https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2..._term=Editorial - Military - Early Bird Brief
Click to expand...


Was on vacation this past week and spotted a Burke just off the side of the road in a seemingly random place and found out there are only two spots on the entire west coast they can actually load weapons on ships:

"For the first time, the planned pier and causeway will be able to accommodate 844-foot-long amphibious assault ships or simultaneously service two guided-missile destroyers.

“That’s very important if you need to move a lot of ships overseas,” Navy spokesperson Gregg Smith said.

Considering the next closest Naval Weapons Station is in Washington, over 1,000 miles from the U.S. Pacific Fleet’s hub in San Diego, the new ammunition pier will raise Seal Beach’s strategic importance for the Navy."

https://www.latimes.com/socal/daily...tory/2020-02-03/navy-breaks-ground-seal-beach
Bit of a shocker to pop out of a town and boom there it is. I expected to see ships when I got to San Diego but was not expecting this some 100 miles north:

View attachment 666987

View attachment 666986

(Obviously I didn't take this but given there was a Burke parked there it's close enough.)
Click to expand...
It is about time! Keep the ammo flowing! The US cannot build enough ships with the facilities it has. There should be a hard look at upgrading and rebuilding US ship building capacity. The current US Navy plan requires it. Having enough skilled workers will be a huge problem. I think we can figure it out. Time is not on our side. Spend 20 minutes going up or down the Chinese coast line on Google Earth, so many dry docks. I have not looked inland along their main rivers.
What ever ships the US Navy builds in the future, they should all be bristling with weapons. I miss the arsenal ship idea, but they are one fat target.
 
to repeat what has already been on SPF
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF11679
Discussing this recommended reduction, the explanatory statement states that “the Navy has not clearly explained the rationale for transitioning to a new class of” LSCs, and that “the Committee does not have confidence in the Navy’s ability to manage the acquisition and contracting for a new class of LSC at this time.”

jeepers for the umpteenth time, hypersonic's drag goes up w/ speed so the range goes down while size of the missile goes up.. Ships need missiles for counter-force deep inland. Hypersonics are huge and wont do the job. The only hypers one needs in counter-hypers, which would still best be done by NPBs. KE effects w DE speed.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom