Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook

Sferrin said:
"Noticeably missing are any Constellation-class frigates. A senior Navy official told reporters today that a decision to continue that program is pending with the administration."

JFC.
Click to expand...

No real surprise. As the cost of the Constellation has ballooned, the program makes less sense.

Still, I'd like to see them finish design and build a few.

Maybe we will learn a few things in the process. The ships will still be useful if we can actually design and build them.
 
Jimmo952 said:
No real surprise. As the cost of the Constellation has ballooned, the program makes less sense.

Still, I'd like to see them finish design and build a few.

Maybe we will learn a few things in the process. The ships will still be useful if we can actually design and build them.
Click to expand...
I'll bet if we cancel it we'll get it right next time. /sarc
 
Sferrin said:
I'm of the opinion we need to build them if only to get the work force up to speed. When you have a large percentage of newbs, holy hell can it be a mess.
Click to expand...

I agree with that. From the people designing them to the people welding, it does not appear a well-oiled machine.
 
Of course another issue with ordering more and putting money down.

Is that if no new ones are layed down.

And lets be real unless they gives the prints into a different yard with no work with orders to build them, NONE WILL BE LAYED DOWN despite there being money.

The money fucks off into the ether basically never to be seen again cause Congress nor the DOD likes seeing money just sitting on the table.

Since the one yard building these has all their slips fill with work with all seem to be not leaving til mid 2027 at the earliest. No new hulls can be added till then.

I don't see the point of adding any more unless we can get Ingells or Bath to do it. Which we probably should if no one other reason then to get more workforce use to them and maybe hopefully get one in the water this decade.
 
One thing I think surface combatants need to have happen, at least with the USN, is that they use a much smaller helicopter than the SH 60. There is little need for them to carry a large multipurpose helicopter if they normally act in concert with a carrier battle group. On their own, I don't think it's worth the cost in space for what they add to the ship's capabilities. Being able to carry two smaller helos would be preferable to one big one, I think.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
One thing I think surface combatants need to have happen, at least with the USN, is that they use a much smaller helicopter than the SH 60. There is little need for them to carry a large multipurpose helicopter if they normally act in concert with a carrier battle group. On their own, I don't think it's worth the cost in space for what they add to the ship's capabilities. Being able to carry two smaller helos would be preferable to one big one, I think.
Click to expand...
Except the utility a common unit helicopter like the Blackhawk, which most US ships have room for two*, has such benefits in so many ways it out weights the done sides.

Especially since while the US ships OFTEN operate in concert with a CSG they just as often F off to do lone wolf stuff.

Remember the Burke was design WITHOUT any ability to have helicopters outside of a pad originally.

That was considered such a stupid set up by the fleet proper that they redesign the class to have a hanger set post haste. Despite having the same exact reasoning you have here for lacking then.

And from the looks of it, other nations agree with this getting similar size copters when possible with two spots.

*Like the only ships that don't have space for two S60 type are the old minesweepers, the Freedoms, and drone boats. The rest have space for and do get 2 SH60 types unless they are in port or have a mission they don't need 2 for. The aircraft doctrine is very flexible in the USN for this exact reason, with the Ship and it airwing being two different entities that can be switch around the fleet as needed.
 
Firefinder said:
That was considered such a stupid set up by the fleet proper that they redesign the class to have a hanger set post haste.
Click to expand...

It would be wise to understand the actual facts involved before making such statements. Not at all a stupid setup, and made complete sense in the context of the design intent at the time - there were more than sufficient ships with organic helicopter capability, and no need for the ships to have it. Everything is ship design is a balance and compromise, so it's rather bloody stupid to provide something you don't need, as it comes at the cost of something else. Only in the context of a post cold war world does the need for organic helo capability become more critical.
 
Firefinder said:
Except the utility a common unit helicopter like the Blackhawk, which most US ships have room for two*, has such benefits in so many ways it out weights the done sides.

Especially since while the US ships OFTEN operate in concert with a CSG they just as often F off to do lone wolf stuff.

Remember the Burke was design WITHOUT any ability to have helicopters outside of a pad originally.

That was considered such a stupid set up by the fleet proper that they redesign the class to have a hanger set post haste. Despite having the same exact reasoning you have here for lacking then.

And from the looks of it, other nations agree with this getting similar size copters when possible with two spots.

*Like the only ships that don't have space for two S60 type are the old minesweepers, the Freedoms, and drone boats. The rest have space for and do get 2 SH60 types unless they are in port or have a mission they don't need 2 for. The aircraft doctrine is very flexible in the USN for this exact reason, with the Ship and it airwing being two different entities that can be switch around the fleet as needed.
Click to expand...
You are missing the point. They don't need large helicopters like the SH 60. They could perform all of the usual missions using smaller ones that are just a capable for the missions intended. It would be like putting the older SH 3 Sea Kings onboard. The two are very close in size and weight. There are many options that are smaller and capable of performing the same missions normally assigned to the SH 60. That would reduce hanger size and the footprint on board ship without reducing mission performance.

In terms of use aboard a frigate or destroyer, the two missions that are critical are ASW and AShW. Everything else is secondary to that and it is likely that a smaller helicopter could still perform those missions too.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
One thing I think surface combatants need to have happen, at least with the USN, is that they use a much smaller helicopter than the SH 60. There is little need for them to carry a large multipurpose helicopter if they normally act in concert with a carrier battle group. On their own, I don't think it's worth the cost in space for what they add to the ship's capabilities. Being able to carry two smaller helos would be preferable to one big one, I think.
Click to expand...
I don't believe that you can get the capabilities in a helicopter smaller than an H60-class.

Remember, any naval helo needs to be able to do SAR (minimum load of 4 crew plus pickups) and either ASW or ASuW. And frankly, the surface-search radar you need to look for periscopes also makes a very good ship-search radar, plus the datalink for processing sonar data back on ship also means that you can use the radar to look over the horizon, so the only difference between the ASW mission and ASuW mission is what weapons you're hanging off the sides. AGM-84s are nearly 1600lbs, so most helicopters won't carry 2 of those; but NSMs are 770lbs, basically the same weight as USN Mk50 torpedoes (and likely the same weight as Mk54Mod1s because those are getting the same engine as the Mk50)
 
Unmanned helos should be able to take over ASW duties, and perhaps ASuW. You'd get better endurance by deleting the crew (using a purpose built VTOL UAV) and putting the crew on the ship. You'd still want a regular helo on any large ship in addition.
 
joshjosh said:
Unmanned helos should be able to take over ASW duties, and perhaps ASuW. You'd get better endurance by deleting the crew (using a purpose built VTOL UAV) and putting the crew on the ship. You'd still want a regular helo on any large ship in addition.
Click to expand...
You're still talking about a pretty large VTOL UAV. Something at least the size of an MQ-8C, just for minimum sensor carriage. Bigger still if you want it to carry sensors and weapons at the same time.
 
Scott Kenny said:
You're still talking about a pretty large VTOL UAV. Something at least the size of an MQ-8C, just for minimum sensor carriage. Bigger still if you want it to carry sensors and weapons at the same time.
Click to expand...

Certainly yes, very large. But a UAV the same size as an MH-60 will have significantly better endurance, and a UAV with the same endurance as an MH-60 would be markedly smaller.
 
joshjosh said:
Certainly yes, very large. But a UAV the same size as an MH-60 will have significantly better endurance, and a UAV with the same endurance as an MH-60 would be markedly smaller.
Click to expand...
going by fuselage size, maybe.

I suspect that when Big Navy sees how big a UAV you need to carry all the ASW+ASuW sensors+weapons, they're going to say "hell with that just give me a Seahawk"
 
Last edited:
Sferrin said:
Meanwhile China turns out ships like burgers at McDonald's. And it's not just ship-building. It's spreading to much, if not most, of manufacturing in the US. Sure, there are a few bright spots. But the situation is getting worse, not better.
Click to expand...
Well, China doesn't have an EPA and OSHA (among other bureaucracies) piled thick with lawyers ready to sue you for some minor infraction or another not to mention worker's unions and even the employees using those rules to get rich from some infraction. All that need for documentation, "training," following labyrinthine, onerous processes in the name of "safety," adds to the cost and time required to get anything done at all.

That is what is wrecking US manufacturing more than anything else. It becomes nearly impossible to get anything done for fear of offending some bureaucrat or another.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Well, China doesn't have an EPA and OSHA (among other bureaucracies) piled thick with lawyers ready to sue you for some minor infraction or another not to mention worker's unions and even the employees using those rules to get rich from some infraction. All that need for documentation, "training," following labyrinthine, onerous processes in the name of "safety," adds to the cost and time required to get anything done at all.

That is what is wrecking US manufacturing more than anything else. It becomes nearly impossible to get anything done for fear of offending some bureaucrat or another.
Click to expand...
You don't need to tell me about gov inefficiency and red tape.
 
Again, American shipbuilding is fundamentally uncompetitive and survives only because of the protectionist policies. The free market should’ve killed it decades ago, Reagan proved that in the 80s. It will never be able to match Red China.

The constant wailing about the decrepit state of American shipbuilding adds no value to the conversation, it merely repeats what’s been painfully obvious for decades.
 
that_person said:
Again, American shipbuilding is fundamentally uncompetitive and survives only because of the protectionist policies. The free market should’ve killed it decades ago, Reagan proved that in the 80s. It will never be able to match Red China.
Click to expand...
The question I have though is what shipbuilding do you expect to occur during a conflict? China is heavily reliant, and shipbuilding is one example, on resources being imported in to the country to provide the refined materials needed to manufacture ships. In a protracted conflict will there be sufficient material coming in to support production ambitions?

If you look at mineral imports here then Australia, Brazil, Chile, Peru and South Africa are the top 5 importers to China. I could see all of those either stopping imports or being prevented from importing materials to China during a protracted conflict.
 
Last edited:
Moose said:
People really gotta stop stressing about this massively vulnerable kludge. If SUBPAC/Taiwan is suppressed enough for them to set this up, things are already well out of hand.
Click to expand...
I think you're missing the point. It isn't just a "kludge" it's a message.
 
I'm saying they've been painting that message on the sides of mountains for most of my adult life, the big resource drain barges aren't the part of the story I'm worried about.
 
Moose said:
I'm saying they've been painting that message on the sides of mountains for most of my adult life, the big resource drain barges aren't the part of the story I'm worried about.
Click to expand...
The message is, "this is happening". It's not just a, "we'd like to".
 
The U.S. is not going to win this competition with ships. Look up.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
One thing I think surface combatants need to have happen, at least with the USN, is that they use a much smaller helicopter than the SH 60. There is little need for them to carry a large multipurpose helicopter if they normally act in concert with a carrier battle group. On their own, I don't think it's worth the cost in space for what they add to the ship's capabilities. Being able to carry two smaller helos would be preferable to one big one, I think.
Click to expand...
Most USN ships can carry 2 MH60s already
 
Josh_TN said:
The U.S. is not going to win this competition with ships. Look up.
Click to expand...
The US need to maximize it’s asymmetric technology advantage in subs with long range precision strike IMHO. Combined with stealth bombers you want to put half of any invasion fleet on the bottom of the SCS in 24 hours.
 
bobbymike said:
The US need to maximize it’s asymmetric technology advantage in subs with long range precision strike IMHO. Combined with stealth bombers you want to put half of any invasion fleet on the bottom of the SCS in 24 hours.
Click to expand...

It looks like they are trying to do exactly that. Lots of investment in maritime strike weapons.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom