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
Herald12345       2/12/2008 9:29:35 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.
If you want to build in US yards, and you'll have too, you need to design/build the frigate to US naval mission standards. that means the Pacific Ocean battle-space and arctic to tropic operating conditions as the set mission bounds.

No Spanish built corvette or European built warship of recent memory besides the Darings comes close to the minimum  USN ENDURANCE requirements.

Large frigates are the price of US seapower.

River class OPVs unless they use helos to chase your average freighter lack the speed and endurance to chase down and heave too, your average modern freighter.

At a minimum, you need a frigate that can chase in  heavy seas at 25 knots, put a 5 inch shell into the pilot house or into the stern of a bandit freighter to wreck its steering, put a helo up, and while it is at it mount a competent ASW/AAW defense of its civilian charges in convoy at least upon the open oceans.of this Earth.

You aren't going to get that in a package under 4500 tons.

Bring back the destroyer escort!     

Herald
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       2/12/2008 10:07:35 PM
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.

which is why you end up having CoastGuard Ocean Cutters participating in bluewater USN ops such as Gulf Security, STANAVFORLANT etc... and ideas such as the 1000 ship navy get promoted to compensate for a lack of available assets to undertake majority missions.
You're paying the price for it, meanwhile frustration will manifest itself through blackshoe responses in pubs such as Proceedings and NSL.....
 
Quote    Reply

benellim4       2/12/2008 10:38:35 PM

If you want to build in US yards, and you'll have too, you need to design/build the frigate to US naval mission standards. that means the Pacific Ocean battle-space and arctic to tropic operating conditions as the set mission bounds.


No Spanish built corvette or European built warship of recent memory besides the Darings comes close to the minimum  USN ENDURANCE requirements.


Large frigates are the price of US seapower.


Australia picked the F100 as their air defense destroyer replacement. These frigates have deployed to Hawaii to engage in BMD tests. They are larger than the FFG-7. They are just as fast as the FFG-7 class (OK a 0.5 knot slower). The endurance is similar. The FFG-7 was rated at 4500nm at 20 knots. The F100 is 4,500nm at 18 knots.  


The F310 has an range of 4500nm at 16 knots. Max speed is a tad slower than FFG-7 at 27 knots. 


I'm sure the corvette is not as good endurance-wise, but then again it's using diesels as its main propulsion not gas turbines. I haven't seen the numbers, but I would bet that it does better than it would appear at first glance. The corvette's advertised max speed is 27 knots. Slower than the FFG-7, but just as fast as the old FF-1052 class. 


Any of the three, the corvette, the F310, or the F100 are far more capable platforms than is the FFG-7, which they would replace.


The only issue with the Spanish ships that I have heard about is with the quality control. The Norwegians are less than pleased with the quality of their ships. Building under license in the States avoids that issue. I'm told that the quality issues are making the RAN nervous.


River class OPVs unless they use helos to chase your average freighter lack the speed and endurance to chase down and heave too, your average modern freighter.


It has an endurance of 7,800 miles at 12 knots. Max speed 20 knots in a sea state of 4. And the design can be modified to add a helo hangar. That would be a requirement. We made that mistake once with the Flight I and II DDGs. Your FFGs aren't chasing down go fasts with their max speed of 29 knots anyway. They're chasing them down with the helo and their small boats.


The great thing about the Rivers is they can self-deploy and can weather rough seas. Their relative lack of complicated combat systems makes them easier to maintain in austere environments like AFRICOM. 


The Rivers wouldn't really be replacing anything, with the exception of maybe the PCs. They would be a supplementary capability.


Quote    Reply


benellim4       2/12/2008 10:44:41 PM

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.


which is why you end up having CoastGuard Ocean Cutters participating in bluewater USN ops such as Gulf Security, STANAVFORLANT etc... and ideas such as the 1000 ship navy get promoted to compensate for a lack of available assets to undertake majority missions.

You're paying the price for it, meanwhile frustration will manifest itself through blackshoe responses in pubs such as Proceedings and NSL.....


On my last deployment we operated with the USCG a lot. Not deepwater stuff, but patrol boats forward deployed. Patrol boats that could be replaced by an OPV-type vessel with no loss in capability. 

Yes, the frustration is high. Check out Commander Salamander's blog. He had a week long thread about shipbuilding. It got over 100 responses, which is a lot for the commander. 


 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       2/12/2008 11:27:13 PM


Yes, the frustration is high. Check out Commander Salamander's blog. He had a week long thread about shipbuilding. It got over 100 responses, which is a lot for the commander. 

Its not as if the build problem is a surprise.  USN  and Dept Commerce provided detail and an internal report to ADF some 4 years ago about the need to avoid RN build problems (hilighted rather dramatically by their need to call on the USN to fix some Astute problems).  USN attached officers to Astute, wrote a subsequent report to USN and  distrib to State/Commerce about the need to avoid similar mistakes.  That report ended up with ADF/RAN as well as we are going through a similar crisis in build capability issue.  Even the Dept Commerce report on US Shipbuilding circa 2000-2001 makes it pretty clear as far as joining the dots is concerned.
Re Salamander, Galrahn also runs a fine blog. 
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    Benellin reply   2/13/2008 12:33:45 AM
GF and I have already gone the rounds about the mismanagement of US shipbuilding and the debacles in the Mississippi yards with reference to our LPDs and the LCS program.

I am not a.fan of the the three tier navy [Boorda plan] since that is how we got into this shipbuilding crisis to begin with. You build to the mission.

The mission is as Mahan clear now as it was in 1888. You protect your commerce, you use the oceans and you make damned sure the other bastards can't protect their commerce or use the oceans without your permission.

A symptom that a navy isn't doing its job is when piracy increases. .

Been reading the shipping news recently?

I have. The situation at sea stinks.

We need frigates, period. 

The Spanish ships are either not built well enough or enduranced enough for Pacific convoy work. They are ATLANTIC ships.

The minimum endurance I expect is 6000 nautical miles @ 16 knots.

Pursuit is minimum sea state 3 preferable 4-which means you will need a TOUGH close framed hull.

Minimum outfit is a single helo station with shelter, flight ops, and FaRP for same.

Gun used for intimidation can be a old 5 inch Mark 45 for all I care or an Oto 5 inch mount, but I want something that can throw the fear of god into a Somali pirate port a la the bad old days when we showed up and shelled the hell out of the local bandits for bothering our flagged vessels..It also is a cost effective way to sink a freighter we want to sink when we want to send a public message to the bandits of this Earth we mean business. Missiles mean an explosion and a ship sinks.Bandits might not understand But naval gunfire?  Everybody understands naval gunfire. It means somebody is P.Oed.

On the subject of rockets, we've seen the Horizon debacle. Lets not go that EU route? We can build in an ESSM RAM SPY1 two zone limited area defense in a frigate that works. We've done it for our allies, why not do it for ourselves? 

The ASW we need to really think hard about. I'm almost convinced that our frigate is going to have to incorporate a control platform architecture for both open ocean and littoral robotic ASW assets. The ship is not the hunter anymore: it has to be the UUVs and the UAVs we send out. Son of DASH it is. .

If you want a minehunter and littoral warfare ship then look at some the ideas the RAN tosses around.The MCV is an option.

But you can't get away from frigates.

That is why I am so angry with the nitwits who drew up the requirements for the LCS and the DDX. What were they thinking? Have they lost control  in the PEO completely?

Herald
 
Quote    Reply

benellim4       2/13/2008 12:19:58 PM
GF and I have already gone the rounds about the mismanagement of US shipbuilding and the debacles in the Mississippi yards with reference to our LPDs and the LCS program.

I am not a.fan of the the three tier navy [Boorda plan] since that is how we got into this shipbuilding crisis to begin with. You build to the mission.

What got us into this debacle was not the plan, it was the execution. Shifting requirements will ALWAYS add cost to a program. LCS had added cost because the requirements for construction were increased from commercial to USN standards. If we had kept the original requirements LCS wouldn't be in the situation it is now. If we had defined the requirements originally we would have gotten a better cost projection. GAO has reported on this a decade ago, and for some reason we have not learned the fundamental lesson.

Boorda wasn't a three tier advocate. In fact, programs like LCS were proposed after Boorda was long since buried. Boorda's baby was arsenal ship, which became SC-21, a family of sea combatants. That progressed to DDX and CGX. About that time LCS was added as a member of the family. Then DDX became DDG-1000, if I remember my general time line correctly. I don't even think you can pin a high/low concept on him. 

LCS was a bastardization of VADM Cebrowski's streetfighter concept. VADM C proposed a small fast, disposable, combatant. LCS was supposed to be larger, fast and disposable. Then the requirements changed and LCS is supposed to be larger, fast and somewhat survivable. That's what has added cost to the program.

The mission is as Mahan clear now as it was in 1888. You protect your commerce, you use the oceans and you make damned sure the other bastards can't protect their commerce or use the oceans without your permission.
We can dominate the oceans and deny it to other navies, in spades.

A symptom that a navy isn't doing its job is when piracy increases. 

Piracy is increasing because the USN can't be everywhere and because there are power vacuums in certain parts of the world. We can't be everywhere because we don't have the ships. We don't have the ships because they are so expensive. They are expensive because of the shifting requirements and the cost of the combat systems suite. We have to stop the spiral. We do that by building smarter. We don't shift the requirements in the middle of construction and we don't add every combat system known to man just because we can.

Been reading the shipping news recently?

I have. The situation at sea stinks.
Even better. I read the daily intel and operational reports. I know what's going on, what we are doing about it, and what constraints we face.

We need frigates, period.  

The Spanish ships are either not built well enough or enduranced enough for Pacific convoy work. They are ATLANTIC ships.

I'm going to need to see a source, especially since the RAN picked those same FFGs for their air warfare destroyer program. Anyone got the specs? How far apart is the frame spacing?
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics