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: Tico and Burke
AThousandYoung    8/12/2010 7:50:15 PM
At this point, are there any significant differences between the Ticonderogas and the Arleigh Burkes? What are they?
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: 1 2
Mikko       8/16/2010 4:57:47 PM
Howdy, Navy-folk
 
Different jet aircfraft are superbly covered here.  I merely have to think about Strategypage and first thing that comes to mind is knowing who builds the best of aircraft. Who is ahead a mile or two and who are the runner-ups still worthy of being mentioned.
 
But how about the surface combatants? Carriers excluded (there is once again little doubt who makes 'em best and maintains a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier force par none around here). I'm talking about the cruisers, destroyers, frigates, corvettes and what else. Is this field too dominated by the US?
 
Does anyone else have a say in fanboi-setups where individual machines are compared without proper reference to the entire system (knowing very well that that would be said first if I don't defuse the bugger first)? I merely am interested to know about how advanced the tech in a particular country's fleet is. Is this another area where US equipment is of different generation alltogether as with air superiority jets; or a field of quite comparable individual performance as with land machines like tanks and other armored vehicles?
 
M
 
Quote    Reply

USN-MID       8/16/2010 5:59:45 PM

Howdy, Navy-folk

 

Different jet aircfraft are superbly covered here.  I merely have to think about Strategypage and first thing that comes to mind is knowing who builds the best of aircraft. Who is ahead a mile or two and who are the runner-ups still worthy of being mentioned.


 

But how about the surface combatants? Carriers excluded (there is once again little doubt who makes 'em best and maintains a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier force par none around here). I'm talking about the cruisers, destroyers, frigates, corvettes and what else. Is this field too dominated by the US?

 

Does anyone else have a say in fanboi-setups where individual machines are compared without proper reference to the entire system (knowing very well that that would be said first if I don't defuse the bugger first)? I merely am interested to know about how advanced the tech in a particular country's fleet is. Is this another area where US equipment is of different generation alltogether as with air superiority jets; or a field of quite comparable individual performance as with land machines like tanks and other armored vehicles?

 

M

Overall, for cruiser and destroyer, it's the US, by far using any reasonable set of standards. The US pretty much maintains the largest force by far in these classes, and is far above closest competitors in AAW/BMD/Strike.
 
For frigates on down it gets more competitive. The US FFG, compared to modern frigates is an ancient broke down piece of crap. Not even in the running.
The Europeans in particular have some very nice new frigates, which in capability are more like slightly scaled down US DDGs. The problem in picking one out as the best is that many are very similar in capability with only minor differences in the top tier. 
Overall, the German, Dutch, Spanish, Aussie and French latest designs all offer similar advertised capabilities.
 
For corvettes, the Visby design seems to be considered the best for now. However, if LCS mission modules work out, I'd give the edge to the LCS, particularly for effectiveness in performing traditional corvette/patrol craft missions.
 
Quote    Reply

USN-MID       8/16/2010 9:14:00 PM

Howdy, Navy-folk

 

Different jet aircfraft are superbly covered here.  I merely have to think about Strategypage and first thing that comes to mind is knowing who builds the best of aircraft. Who is ahead a mile or two and who are the runner-ups still worthy of being mentioned.


 

But how about the surface combatants? Carriers excluded (there is once again little doubt who makes 'em best and maintains a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier force par none around here). I'm talking about the cruisers, destroyers, frigates, corvettes and what else. Is this field too dominated by the US?

 

Does anyone else have a say in fanboi-setups where individual machines are compared without proper reference to the entire system (knowing very well that that would be said first if I don't defuse the bugger first)? I merely am interested to know about how advanced the tech in a particular country's fleet is. Is this another area where US equipment is of different generation alltogether as with air superiority jets; or a field of quite comparable individual performance as with land machines like tanks and other armored vehicles?

 

M

Overall, for cruiser and destroyer, it's the US, by far using any reasonable set of standards. The US pretty much maintains the largest force by far in these classes, and is far above closest competitors in AAW/BMD/Strike.
 
For frigates on down it gets more competitive. The US FFG, compared to modern frigates is an ancient broke down piece of crap. Not even in the running.
The Europeans in particular have some very nice new frigates, which in capability are more like slightly scaled down US DDGs. The problem in picking one out as the best is that many are very similar in capability with only minor differences in the top tier. 
Overall, the German, Dutch, Spanish, Aussie and French latest designs all offer similar advertised capabilities.
 
For corvettes, the Visby design seems to be considered the best for now. However, if LCS mission modules work out, I'd give the edge to the LCS, particularly for effectiveness in performing traditional corvette/patrol craft missions.
 
Quote    Reply

Mikko       8/17/2010 3:47:33 AM

Overall, for cruiser and destroyer, it's the US, by far using any reasonable set of standards. The US pretty much maintains the largest force by far in these classes, and is far above closest competitors in AAW/BMD/Strike.

For frigates on down it gets more competitive. The US FFG, compared to modern frigates is an ancient broke down piece of crap. Not even in the running.

The Europeans in particular have some very nice new frigates, which in capability are more like slightly scaled down US DDGs. The problem in picking one out as the best is that many are very similar in capability with only minor differences in the top tier. 

Overall, the German, Dutch, Spanish, Aussie and French latest designs all offer similar advertised capabilities.

For corvettes, the Visby design seems to be considered the best for now. However, if LCS mission modules work out, I'd give the edge to the LCS, particularly for effectiveness in performing traditional corvette/patrol craft missions.

Thanks, mate. That's pretty much in line with the picture I had in my mind; that the smaller crafts are a more competed field whereas bigger vessels are a US dominance area.
 
M
 
Quote    Reply

Othon       8/17/2010 6:10:45 AM
I don't think littoral strategy is still predominant in US Navy - note Zumwalt-class "littoral cruisers" project was in fact canceled. Those warships were designed to operate safely on littoral waters thanks to very high level of  "sea stealth". However even US was not able to spend 3-4 billion dollars for "Zumwalts" apiece. So mainly economic considerations drove US Navy out of littoral warfare concept because it is too expensive taking into consideration combat strength of potential enemies close to their home waters (land based aviation, coastal missile systems, AIP subs).

I suppose today US Navy took another stance: Vast number of rather conventionally designed large warships (Ticos and Burkes) are responsible for gaining superiority on high seas close to theater of military operations. Later they will have to accomplish three main tasks: theater ABM defense, an AAW and ASW screen of carriers and indirectly securing carrier aviation strikes on land targets, attacking land targets with Tomahawks. More stealthy LCS ships as sole true littoral warfare combatants will be utilized mainly in asymmetric scenarios.
USAF and US Navy aviation will strengthen their combat potential when much more stealth fighters and UCAVs become available (F-35, Reaper, Sea Avenger) replacing F-16C and F-18C planes. However this won't happen quickly.

Also note now many allied navies are powerful enough to counter potential enemies without US Navy support. I mean Japanese, South Korean, Turkish, German, British, French, Saudi navies against PLAN, Russian and Iranian navies. Therefore partial relying of US naval strategy on allied forces is fully understood.
 
Quote    Reply

Juramentado       8/17/2010 10:24:40 AM

I don't think littoral strategy is still predominant in US Navy - note Zumwalt-class "littoral cruisers" project was in fact canceled. Those warships were designed to operate safely on littoral waters thanks to very high level of  "sea stealth". However even US was not able to spend 3-4 billion dollars for "Zumwalts" apiece. So mainly economic considerations drove US Navy out of littoral warfare concept because it is too expensive taking into consideration combat strength of potential enemies close to their home waters (land based aviation, coastal missile systems, AIP subs).
With 55+ LCS projected for the future (even reducing that to 40 with budgetary cuts), I would disagree. So would the Navy since they just published the Naval Operations Concept 2010 document not more than two months ago. LCS and littoral are liberally spread throughout that document, and ties back to Strategy 21C. All of the current studies and thinking also point to the superiority of the mothership concept - that is, a low-end combatant working inside a permissive threat environment, will succeed against small boat swarms and asymmetric threats if properly equipped with helos and remote systems. The NDIA SuW studies and the thinking from TF Hip Pocket (post-assessment study following the USS Cole bombing) support that approach.
Strike warfare is predominant and has been since the 90s and the first Gulf War. But with the advent of Prompt Global Strike, the Navy has recognized the capability gaps that are growing, particularly in supersonic strike missiles and more comprehensive OTH targeting. Aviation is the still the premier strike delivery method, but we could see a round of future dedicated SSGNs built from the ground up. BMD has become a neccessity because many opfor nations have chosen to invest in AA/AD weaponry because they cannot match conventional forces hull for hull. With throw weights, lethality of unitary warheads and accuracy rising with every new generation of tactical missiles, it was evident that the next round of conflicts could be won or lost in near-space.

 
Quote    Reply

Othon       8/19/2010 2:50:27 PM
It looks like you agree with me while disagree in the same time. http://www.strategypage.com/CuteSoft_Client/CuteEditor/Images/emsmile.gif" alt="" align="absmiddle" border="0" />
 
What you wrote above I mainly pointed out in my last post! Of course littoral warfare will still be present in US Navy strategy but it will be its second rank duty - only asymmetrical threats will be fought in accordance with this concept. Of course LCS warships are pretty suitable to do such work but this is completely different thing than previous plans. Earlier US Navy staff thought that brand-new stealth cruisers and destroyers, which were to replace Ticos and Burkes since 2010, would be capable to operate quite close to enemy shores ALSO during war with advanced adversary. However after close examination it turned out to be very hard task to accomplish. Simply such vessels proved to be very expensive, still quite vulnerable and still not meeting several requirements because during past twenty years many potential adversaries made large progress in littoral warfare (various anti-access strategies). As a result Zumwalt-class littoral cruiser program was effectively canceled and entire US naval strategy changed toward more blue water concept which is much less costly but equally effective. In short, during hypothetical war with advanced enemy much more conventional surface warships will assure theater ABM, AAW and ASW defense but staying far away from enemy coast than once planned CG(X) & DDG(X) fleet while strike missions will be carried out by submarines and more and more stealthy aviation, UCAVs, PGMs. Yet during asymmetrical conflict littoral warfare will be possible to fight in line with  previous plans and LCS ship is very well designed to combat such threats.           
 
That is an essence of present change in US naval strategy...
 
 
Quote    Reply
1 2



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics