USN Large Surface Combatant - Delayed

[Cordy]

asVAL said:
Back to LSC.
How about building a Flight IIIA that incorporates the CGBL hull mated to a modern propulsion ( IEPS is a must) and the current Flight III combat system? Think: 128 VLS, double RAM and can be upgraded to DEW, AMDR, SLQ-32v7 and a new CIC. How fast could one shipyard switch over to building a larger, albeit only stretched, hull form? It's not an entirely new run, just an upgrade to deal with the obsolecense of the Burke hull design and prepare the USN for DDGX.

Why would IEPS be a must, the build track record of the IEP Zumwalts was a disaster, the third and final ship Lyndon B Johnson construction began May 2012 and only sailed to Ingalls for its combat installation early January 2023, the best part of 11 years, one reason quoted for the long build time was hours required for the IEP.

If you need additional instantaneous electrical power by far the quickest/cheapest and most economical system to operate are diesel generators and UPS with a DC grid which allows instant synchronization when additional DG bought online and also allows the DGs to operate at its optimal variable speeds for the power needed whereas with an AC grid it requires the generators time to synchronize and the reason why with the Burke the Navy requires two of its AG9140 GTGs to be operating with the spare guzzling fuel all the time, even if the power is not required, so if one fails for any reason instant power available to avoid outages. Other pluses with DC grid it also saves weight/cost/space as it eliminates the big and heavy main switchboards and drive transformers.

 

[Firefinder]

Modern Tomahawks aren't capable of being launched from torpedo tube. Their hulls were lightened, and would not be able to survive water hammer impact.

Actually even the old ones was too weak to withstand the water hammer.

But when launch from a torp tube, the Tomahawk sits in its own canister call the Submarine Horizontal Launch TACTOM Capsule (SHLTC) which provides the need protection for such launch. Even for the new ones.

It was the BGM-110 that could fired bare from a torp tube.

And the RN just bout a new load of modern Tomahawks for their Astutes. And still consider a weapon for use by the Seawolf, both which do not have VLS of any type.

Also the sub VLS system uses the same style water hammer to punt the things out of the tubes.

So yes, modern T-hawks can be fire torp tubes just fine.

 

[Dilandu]

But when launch from a torp tube, the Tomahawk sits in its own canister call the Submarine Horizontal Launch TACTOM Capsule (SHLTC) which provides the need protection for such launch. Even for the new ones.

I knew about the canister, but as far as I knew (sorry for tautology), modern Tomahawks - with lightened hulls - still could not survive the launch from torpedo tube.

 

[Firefinder]

I knew about the canister, but as far as I knew (sorry for tautology), modern Tomahawks - with lightened hulls - still could not survive the launch from torpedo tube.

Nope, they still can.

Have to. Since for the sub VLS launch kicks just as hard and it has the added stress of the water... stream... cross current...

Dafug is the proper terminology there?

The sub is still moving forward at like 3 knots and there other water currents to deal with.

So it needs a decent kick to avoid hitting the sub sail, which is bad...

So it needs to be strong enough to keep breaking in half from the currents and strong enough to survive being tossed out at a decent rate.

Which means it be strong enough to survive the less stressful, no cross current, torpedo tube launch.

Plus again

The Royal Navy bought Block IV's for their Submarines back in 2014, and in the middle of last year started upgrading them to Block V standards to be done next year. None of their surface ships can launch them and none of their subs have VLS.

And those are the two newest blocks so...

 

[Dilandu]

And those are the two newest blocks so...

Ok, than I stand corrected.

 

[starviking]

What is going to stop the PLANMC from occupying this island? Or just destroying the SAM battery they intend to place there?

If they occupy the island, they are not only at war with Japan, but because of the Japan-US Security Treaty, the US too.

Destroying the SAM battery also invokes the treaty, and thus China is at war with Japan and the US.

It’s also that defences in that region will have been reinforced, unless Chian manages to pull off a total surprise attack on Taiwan

 

[asVAL]

If they occupy the island, they are not only at war with Japan, but because of the Japan-US Security Treaty, the US too.

I'd figure that stationing or reinforcing ROC forces with allied troops amidst a PLAN blockade, when there's a literal war going on and threatening to down PLA interceptors would provoke a very justified PLARF IRBM spam.

It’s also that defences in that region will have been reinforced, unless China manages to pull off a total surprise attack on Taiwan

China has been playing a significant amount of saber rattling for the past few years and theres no sign of them backing down. What military can support 24/7 deployment of fighters, AEW and ships on defense covering an area the size of the 1IC?

And the PLARF has already demonstrated the ability to assemble and fire 300mm cross-strait capable MLRS on hour-long drills before so I certainly dont doubt that they could pull off a quick TBM strikes on Taipei covering J-20s and YJ-21 strikes on allied airbases in the West Pacific. The latter is an extremely dangerous op that requires meticulous planning and execution but a total wide scale confusion across INDOPACOM on ROC, RAAF, JSDF and Guam all at once would be damning to say the least.

 

[Scott Kenny]

I'd figure that stationing or reinforcing ROC forces with allied troops amidst a PLAN blockade, when there's a literal war going on and threatening to down PLA interceptors would provoke a very justified PLARF IRBM spam.

If the US forces on Guam, Okinawa, or Yonagumi are already fighting China, then that's one thing.

It's a whole 'nother thing to preemptively attack and then draw in the US due to the US-Japan Security Treaty.

China has been playing a significant amount of saber rattling for the past few years and theres no sign of them backing down. What military can support 24/7 deployment of fighters, AEW and ships on defense covering an area the size of the 1IC?

And the PLARF has already demonstrated the ability to assemble and fire 300mm cross-strait capable MLRS on hour-long drills before so I certainly dont doubt that they could pull off a quick TBM strikes on Taipei covering J-20s and YJ-21 strikes on allied airbases in the West Pacific. The latter is an extremely dangerous op that requires meticulous planning and execution but a total wide scale confusion across INDOPACOM on ROC, RAAF, JSDF and Guam all at once would be damning to say the least.

And widens the war.

 

[asVAL]

If the US forces on Guam, Okinawa, or Yonagumi are already fighting China, then that's one thing

Its not dissimilar at all
The discussion revolves around the ability to resupply ROC troops with conventional forces during a blockade, to which starvikings responded that

They’d be under the umbrella of the JSDF missile base on Yonagumi Island, a little over 100 km from Taiwan.

A blockade means a killzone. Going into that means begging to get clapped by HHQ-9s and J-20 patrols. Destroying them to open up a pathway for resupply is by definition destroying PLA assets and automatically calls for a war.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Its not dissimilar at all
The discussion revolves around the ability to resupply ROC troops with conventional forces during a blockade, to which starvikings responded that

A blockade means a killzone. Going into that means begging to get clapped by HHQ-9s and J-20 patrols. Destroying them to open up a pathway for resupply is by definition destroying PLA assets and automatically calls for a war.

Yes, it does. Ordinarily, a blockade is an act of war.

Problem is that both Mainland and Island insist that they are the legal government of China. It's a civil war.