Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Surface Forces Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: vls on u.s. carriers
stinger    2/6/2008 1:21:40 AM
are they going to install vertical launch system on the new carriers , so they can fire sm-2 or sm-3 missiles, essm or even a salvo of tomahawks, that might be a little over kill, but at least be capable of defending itself in the modern days.it would be such a waste if not. the destroyers and cruisers can still protect the carrier in choke points and straits but focus more on destroying the enemy than providing cover at all times but just in critical areas.
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12   NEXT
benellim4       2/12/2008 4:20:43 PM


That's why I wondered WTF?  Your phrasing was infelicitous.  Do I continue playing English teacher or shall we move on? 
Oh please do go on. It does appear you were the only one that had problems getting the point. So continue on until you feel that you have been justified in you attacks.

If your concern was progressive flooding, that is chiefly a question of bulkheads, which you get in a Chinese junk.  Nothing special about those, just put 'em in.

Chiefly a concern of bulkheads? No. It's chiefly a concern of damage control ability, of which bulkheads is just one part.

Or do shaft seal events uniquely contribute to progressive flooding?  I just assumed - yes, I guess I don't really know for sure - that a) they are hard to fix, you can't just fother them and b) whatever you do may interfere with propulsion.  Okay, and I guess c) the shafts may run a good way thru the ship, exposing more internal area to flooding via the shafts.  Did I miss anything else that is not classified?
Yes, what is the ability of a ship built to commercial standards, vice Navy standards, to combat that damage?


You obviously don't understand the utilization of the AOE. You don't take an AOE into a hot area willingly. That's exactly what your container ship/barge would do, what it would have to do to execute its mission.




You are mistaken.  Its mission is to fire off its VLS cells, just like any Aegis ship, except it doesn't have the fire control.  Anything else, cargo, tanking, decoy, is just a bonus.  The massive overkill on hull size is optional for the many reasons I have discussed.
You're the one missing the point. In order to be in a position to fire those missiles, it has to be in harms way. An AOE does not have to be in harms way to perform its mission That is the fundamental difference.


I see where the personal attacks have come from. You got sore because I said your arsenal ship was a bad idea (something the Navy figured out a decade ago) and I criticized your smaller C-130 idea.



You are mistaken.  I have no personal investment in the arsenal ship, this is all off the cuff.  And this is an essentially academic discussion board, mistakes are free.  I am more interested in the JSA (my name for the smaller cargo aircraft) because it has other potential users, but your criticism consists of "No," or "No, dummy," which is nither helpful nor convincing.

No dummy? I never said that. You're obviously reading into my posts what you want to see.

Like I said before, I neither need nor desire your respect.



So far it's chiefly clear that you don't earn my respect.  You do so by clear and insightful communications. 
The only person who wants me to earn your respect is you. That's telling. Why do you want me to seek your approval? Is it a self-esteem thing?

Quote    Reply

ArtyEngineer       2/12/2008 4:55:17 PM







There's a lot to say but I'm running late.  However, when you talk about shaft seal events and the RMS Titanic, I begin to lose respect for you.  Why don't you rethink your post before I get back and do it for you.



First of all, I don't need nor desire your respect.




Well, I was trying to avoid coming to the conclusion that you are a pompous ass, but if you insist on it, I must believe you.  A rarity among naval acquaintances of mine, but who am I to disagree in the absence of any contrary evidence?





If you didn't get the correlation between the two events perhaps you should rethink yourself. Progressive flooding kills ships. It doesn't matter if it's from an iceberg that makes a hole below the waterline or a torpedo hit. The difference between a USN ship and a commercial ship is their ability to withstand the damage. USS SAMUEL B. ROBERTS and USS COLE both had flooding. They both lived to fight another day. I have yet to see a ship built to commercial standards withstand damage below the waterline. Shaft seals makes it worse.





OK let me try again.  I have written papers on RMS Titanic.  I have built models of RMS Titanic. 

RMS Titanic, sir, did not suffer a shaft seals event.  The collision was forward, complications including a single hull of defective (brittle) steel and bulkheads that were not watertight.  I will not trouble you with further details unless you want illustration that the shaft seals on the Titanic were aft, and that aft is the opposite of forward.  Don't be shy, you just let me know if you need me to DRAW YOU A DIAGRAM.  Nothing's too good for our boys in the service!

If you mean that holes in the bottom of the boat tend to let in water and make sinky, I won't argue the point.  In fact I will cheer your firm grasp of this principle, which in fact has been at issue elsewhere on SP boards - kill modes in WWII, shells/bombs striking from above, vs. torps hits between wind and water.

Incidentally, if you want to hide behind your sooper-sekrit clearance and make an unsupported assertion, I will be happy, nay, delighted to believe you, if you tell me that a CVN cannot suffer a shaft seal event.  What joy!  But I feel bad for our enemies that they wasted all that money on wake homing torpedoes.


Just out of curiosity, since you're so eager to correct me, what is you naval experience?


Well, most recently, I wrote my thesis on Organization and Management in the Royal Navy.  I candidly admit to never having been on an exploding AOE and I look forward to your sea stories of same (and how glad I am that you survived). 

I trust they will all begin "No s--t..."



"I have yet to see a ship built to commercial standards withstand damage below the waterline."
 
I happen to know a little bit about big floaty things.  Before I took a radical carrer change I was Naval Architect!!!!  The ability of Naval Vessels to withand below waterline damage is a function of the highly trained, highly motivated damage control parties.  Not fundamental differences in the structural layout or codes to which these vessels are built.  Many Naval vessels are starting to be built to civilian codes from Lloydes Register, American Bureau of Shipping (ABS) and Det Norsk Veritas.  Good example: HMS Ocean.
 
Regarding RMS Titanic, when I was at University a attended an awesome lecture g
 
Quote    Reply

benellim4       2/12/2008 5:10:55 PM
I happen to know a little bit about big floaty things.  Before I took a radical carrer change I was Naval Architect!!!!  The ability of Naval Vessels to withand below waterline damage is a function of the highly trained, highly motivated damage control parties.  Not fundamental differences in the structural layout or codes to which these vessels are built.  Many Naval vessels are starting to be built to civilian codes from Lloydes Register, American Bureau of Shipping (ABS) and Det Norsk Veritas.  Good example: HMS Ocean.

I understand your point about new naval vessels, especially those going into service in allied navies. I'll bow to your experience as an architect. I do agree that damage control parties play the biggest role, which is why I'm not a fan of either the LCS nor the DDG-1000's crew size. I believe it to be a mistake.

I have to disagree(respectfully, I would hate to come across as arrogant, again) with your take on the fundamental differences. The LCS project is over budget, not because the USN decided to add more systems (We took systems off of the original proposals because they were deemed unnecessary.) but because the civilian standards (IIRC ABS) did not meet the USN's requirements. Of course, the USN should have known that going in, but not everyone did their homework. 

The other example off the top of my head is the Patrol Coastals. They use commercial watertight doors. They do not meet USN standards, as the Bureau of Inspection and Survey likes to point out during their inspections. 

I've also been on the HMAS Stuart. I'm not sure to whose standards it is built being a multi-national hull, but, to me, the difference between the Stuart and an Arleigh Burke is almost night and day.

Conversely, a specific design of watertight doors for commercial ships has been adopted by the USN because it is low maintenance. So perhaps talking in generalities is a bit too broad to be useful?
 
Quote    Reply

benellim4       2/12/2008 5:33:56 PM
Lets look at a possible cost out of an arsenal ship. [100,000 k/tonne displacement]
a. hull $125M
b. engines [diesels] $55-100M
c. electronics $300M
d. 125 VLS canisters @ $5M a  8 cell can [does not include rockets] $625M These cans will stand 25 feet tall, 10 feet long and 6 feet wide. Non-standard, the cans require special handling machinery. This is for the short can by the way.   
e. Now add 1000 rockets  of all types @  $1M or  $1B.
________________________________________
$ 2,105B 

A
Lets look at that, using the modern high speed freighter [25 ktonne displacement HSF] as a model.
a. hull $55M
b. engines [diesels] $55-100M
c. electronics $300M
d. 30 VLS canisters @ $5M a  8 cell can [does not include rockets] $150M These cans will stand 25 feet tall, 10 feet long and 6 feet wide. Non-standard, the cans require special handling machinery. This is for the short can by the way.   
e. Now add  rockets  of all types @  $240M.
________________________________________
$ 890M
I think you show why the USN would never go for it. The first vessel has a start up cost of $1 billion. The price of a new Burke. And it can't defend itself, so you can't detach it to do boardings or provide single ship presence off the coast of some third world country like so: 
ht tp://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2007-10/2007-10-30-voa70.cfm

The second ship is a hard sell as well. You still can't do the ops: presence, boardings, etc. It's a one trick pony with 1/3 the firepower of a Burke at half the cost. It would be a nice capability to have in a shooting war, but in normal peace time ops it doesn't gain you much by itself.

Let's face it, the reason the USN wants 313 ships is to provide coverage to do operations like boardings, exercises with allied nations, and anti-piracy patrols. You can't do any of that with a ship that has a small crew and only performs the strike mission (or for the alternate idea, it can't perform its mission without other ships in company).

<
 
Quote    Reply

flamingknives       2/12/2008 5:37:10 PM
HMS Ocean is unusual in that it is built to civilian standards. The Daring class, River class, Albion class and the new carriers are not.
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       2/12/2008 5:54:02 PM



As much as it pains me to agree, you have my whole hearted agreement re this comparison.  (Having witnessed the build level differences between USS Russell (early block AB) and HMAS ANZAC (Stuarts sister vessel)
 
The ANZACs were part of the Meko design philosophy and have paid the price accordingly.  Personally I would't let Tenix build a toilet as their attention to detail and build competency has been shocking ( again, IMV)
 
It raises the issue of MOTS/COTS within the commercial/military build philosophy, as IMO the COTS mentality results in a degradation of quality if not in philosophical, but indeed in actual construction terms.
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345       2/12/2008 6:00:27 PM

Lets look at a possible cost out of an arsenal ship. [100,000 k/tonne displacement]
a. hull $125M
b. engines [diesels] $55-100M
c. electronics $300M
d. 125 VLS canisters @ $5M a  8 cell can [does not include rockets] $625M These cans will stand 25 feet tall, 10 feet long and 6 feet wide. Non-standard, the cans require special handling machinery. This is for the short can by the way.   
e. Now add 1000 rockets  of all types @  $1M or  $1B.
________________________________________
$ 2,105B 

A
Lets look at that, using the modern high speed freighter [25 ktonne displacement HSF] as a model.
a. hull $55M
b. engines [diesels] $55-100M
c. electronics $300M
d. 30 VLS canisters @ $5M a  8 cell can [does not include rockets] $150M These cans will stand 25 feet tall, 10 feet long and 6 feet wide. Non-standard, the cans require special handling machinery. This is for the short can by the way.   
e. Now add  rockets  of all types @  $240M.
________________________________________
$ 890M
I think you show why the USN would never go for it. The first vessel has a start up cost of $1 billion. The price of a new Burke. And it can't defend itself, so you can't detach it to do boardings or provide single ship presence off the coast of some third world country like so: 
ht tp://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2007-10/2007-10-30-voa70.cfm
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       2/12/2008 6:00:56 PM


It raises the issue of MOTS/COTS within the commercial/military build philosophy, as IMO the COTS mentality results in a degradation of quality if not in philosophical, but indeed in actual construction terms.

Just to clarify the above, this is in the context that politically, government appears to see a COTS solution as a panacea for shortening build times, and that COTS therefore must by association demonstrate latent efficiencies,  as its governed by time efficiencies rather than the implied distasteful zealotary that a military focussed yard is actually trying to build the best survivable platform possible as its principle priority.
its the perennial problem, commercial reality as opposed to efficient warfighters solution.

 
Quote    Reply

ArtyEngineer       2/12/2008 6:38:00 PM

HMS Ocean is unusual in that it is built to civilian standards. The Daring class, River class, Albion class and the new carriers are not.

Oh.  Im very far removed from that industry these days but before I left the thought was that HMS Ocean was the start of a trend.  I guess not.
 
Quote    Reply

benellim4       2/12/2008 8:57:13 PM


Let me clarify. The HSF strike ship would carry 240 rockets or cruise missiles.

If the Arleigh Burke is a freighter chaser for a stop and search, then we are doing something WRONG.

That is a frigate's job.

Herald
HSF? High Speed Freighter? I was thinking smaller, like the High Speed Vessel in service with the US Army and the USN. I believe they're on lease from our friends down under. Something small, doesn't draft a lot. Can get in an out quickly. Since they're being used for theater support, they can get in and out of opareas quickly, returning to port to replenish. That was my concept anyway.

Either way, the inability to do routine presence ops means the USN won't pay for it.

Yes, we have Burkes doing boardings. We have Aegis cruisers doing boardings. We have amphibs doing boardings. And yes we're doing something wrong. We aren't building low end ships quick and cheap enough. This would be one of the Bozo decisions I spoke of earlier.

Think about it this way. We have 22 CGs, ~53 DDGs. We only have 30 FFGs and 8 PCs. The FFGs and PCs can't be everywhere to do all the boarding work that needs to be done.

I think we should shit-can LCS (Little crappy ship, not the MIW or ASW mission modules which are actually being delivered on time and under budget.) and build under license either the F-100 frigate or the AFCON corvette, which ever one has the space to support the mission modules. Approximately 30 of them. And another 45 River class OPVs to do the low intensity stuff like counter drug ops, anti-piracy ops, GOPLAT protection, etc.  The River class has room for things like an LCVP, which means they may be able to support the mission modules as well, depending on the power requirements, etc. The River class would replace the FFG-7 and PC-1 classes. That would bring us to 316 ships. Fairly close to the stated goal of 313.
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics