tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post1977292800477843848..comments2024-03-28T04:22:28.228-07:00Comments on Navy Matters: Assault Aviation SupportComNavOpshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comBlogger68125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-23612251502595076082015-03-30T07:15:04.580-07:002015-03-30T07:15:04.580-07:00Only 24% of CAS sorties in Iraq and Afghanistan fr...Only 24% of CAS sorties in Iraq and Afghanistan from 2006-20013 were flown by A-10s.<br /><br />http://aviationweek.com/defense/usaf-eyes-new-era-close-air-support?NL=AW-05&Issue=AW-05_20150330_AW-05_630&YM_RID=%27email%27&YM_MID=%27mmid%27&sfvc4enews=42&cl=article_1B.Smittyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12650152449414871058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-41145294073928248222015-03-25T13:35:41.818-07:002015-03-25T13:35:41.818-07:00"You asked for my opinion but you covered a t..."You asked for my opinion but you covered a ton of stuff! What, specifically, are you asking for an opinion on?"<br /><br />I was mainly asking your opinion as to how the post delivery is factored into the budget column items, considering that the 2014, 2015, and 2016 FY worth of Burkes are equal in total costs with the 2010 - 2013 FYs worth of Burkes, even though the latter has 'less cost to complete' budget lines (which sound a lot like post delivery costs) spanning all the way to 2018.<br />I was assuming that the totals (post 'cost to complete') equal the actual cost of the ship after post-delivery, but was wary enough of that assumption to be asking about it.<br />Since I was off on my estimates, I was trying to refine my total cost evaluation scheme (as you suggested); thus I was attempting to better understand the cost breakdown of the ships that I'm trying to compete with.<br />...If that makes any sense at all.<br /><br />I'm not going to ask for your opinion on my vapor-ships until I at least have a plan drawn up for them (and I'm still working on the submarine, so drawing up a DD design could take a while), although that doesn't stop me from childishly ranting about the cost differences; and, although I'm highly interested in your opinion on my claim of waste in the Burke and LCS programs (specifically, if how much slack I claimed could be cut off appeared to be an assertion of the first kind of costs [fantasy/what should be] or legitimate criticism [actually sounds reasonable]), it's pretty much just my conjecture/accusation at this point, so I question the point in critiquing it.<br /><br />- Ray D.Ray D.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-25355132495806819012015-03-25T11:47:06.322-07:002015-03-25T11:47:06.322-07:00Well, you seem to be on the right path in discussi...Well, you seem to be on the right path in discussion of costs. So many people quote manufacturer's component selling prices without recognizing that the equipment has to be installed and that's a major cost factor.<br /><br />Regarding post-delivery, all ships have budgeted post-delivery periods. No ship is delivered complete - and the trend is towards less and less finished upon delivery.<br /><br />You asked for my opinion but you covered a ton of stuff! What, specifically, are you asking for an opinion on? ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-56692638854342953292015-03-25T06:41:54.941-07:002015-03-25T06:41:54.941-07:00CNO (continued, part 2/2),
With that out of the w...CNO (continued, part 2/2),<br /><br />With that out of the way, I can give an idea as to how my price estimate (in above post) was so much lower than the Burkes even though I ripped more than half the parts list from them.<br /><br />Each Burke seems to spend 40 or more months on the yard.<br />That's longer than it took to build the Iowas, and they where a whole lot more complicated.<br /><br />This means that the yards are going to be charging ~150%+ of the cost of the components (that they actually have to manhandle themselves) for each ship's construction. Possibly more since they have to pay the high salaries of aluminum welders.<br />Seriously, each Burke is costing the US Taxpayer $700M+ in the shipyard's fees alone.<br />I'm going to go ahead and make it a point that if the Burkes' design would have been oriented towards construction - and not bleeding-edge poppycock (AND if they hadn't used aluminum for the funnel superstructure [they only saved ~112 l.ts!]) - they would have probably saved roughly ~$400M per ship (partially in parts, mostly in construction), since the yards could have cranked them out in only 30 months or less (and they would have charged less per month as well, since complexity).<br />That being said, doubling the construction rate would likely shave off another $100M to $300M in the production line payoff, looking at the variance between years where only 1 Burke is being procured as compared to 2 (or 3).<br />This not mentioning the cost of the Main Reduction Gears (part of HM&E costs), which is $42M on its own. Entire FIEP systems can cost less than these components alone!<br />I could also complain about the costs of some of their chosen componentry, since COTS equivalents would seem to cost far less, but I'm willing to let those slide on the grounds of Grade A Shock Tolerance issues (which I have no way of knowing or testing).<br /><br />While on the topic of prices.<br />Looking over that document, you may note that the LCS - which is so much smaller, less capable, and somehow even more fragile than an armorless Burke - still manages to cost over $350M (over 100% of the value of its parts) in construction costs alone.<br />This is because they're mostly aluminum - my hatred of which I've already expressed - and they manage to spend 38 months sitting around on the yard.<br />Seriously, if the LCS' would have been designed for rapid and cheap construction, made out of steel, and had 3 times the production rate, each one would only cost ~$340M... as in, right now, before the production lines get fully ramped up.<br />But they can't do that, because the Independence-class is a heinously complicated beast and they're passing the construction costs off onto the Freedom-class (which in turn is also ridiculously over-complicated, but still much simpler in comparison).<br /><br />...If I may posit conjecture, it's beginning to appear to me as if the navy is doing this on purpose. <br />I almost think they're scared of justifying (to congress) why they're not putting out 12+ ships a year, since they wouldn't be able to justify (to congress) scrapping relatively current ships with 15+ years still left in them meaning that the production and age-attrition would balance each other out at over 600 combat ships in the fleet.<br />They don't want to have to pay for the manpower to crew that many ships, but are scared of potential cuts to their budget if they aren't able to claim they're using the budget for shipbuilding.<br />Part of me thinks that thought is insane, the other part isn't quite so sure anymore.<br /><br />Also, going over the budget (other documents included), they seem to imply that only some of the Burkes have post delivery budgets, but not all of them.<br />I'm assuming it's because the other ones were fully funded since the totals are equatable, but am not sure.<br />What is your opinion on this, if I may ask?<br /><br />- Ray D.Ray D.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-82580366114653586722015-03-25T06:38:08.541-07:002015-03-25T06:38:08.541-07:00CNO (part 1/2),
Since I 'briefly' went ov...CNO (part 1/2),<br /><br />Since I 'briefly' went over that document Smitty referred me to, I now have a general idea of where the costs are going on the Burke AND can give a much better explanation of how my stated prices keep ending up so much different than one would expect.<br /><br />That being said, I was off on several of my figures (apparently, the Government has access to a lot of technology much cheaper than its civilian counterparts).<br />I had guessed a price of ~$80M for the gun, when it's actually only ~$26M.<br />I had calculated the price of the 96 VLS cells as ~$90M. Well, it's actually only ~$55M (although they included the Tomahawk system as a separate line item when I included it in the price of the VLS, which makes the difference only $19M).<br />I assumed a cost of ~$10M each for the Mk32 SVTT. It's apparently only $3M for both of them.<br />In fact, there are only a few things that I managed to undershoot on.<br />First off, the Phalanx unit appears to cost ~$8M instead of the $6M I had assumed.<br />Secondly, the cost of the AEGIS was reported as ~$253M, instead of the ~$234 that I had figured. (I'm guessing this is the post-delivery costs you mentioned?).<br />The biggest slip up was the Controllable/Reversible Pitch propellers. They're not mentioned in that document, but the spirit of honesty demands that I cover them anyway. I was talking to my source who pointed out that I made a massive mistake in the prairie system's construction, the end price is probably closer to ~$10M for BOTH propellers.<br />...Yes, that much of a slip up is highly embarrassing.<br />(The price I guessed for the desalination plant is also embarrassingly over what it must actually be.)<br /><br />All this being said, after going through that document, I fiddled with the earlier mentioned DD schemes and still only ended up with a ~$638,047k design (before construction costs).<br />Unfortunately, I estimate the construction costs as roughly ~$500M per ship (2 years construction), which would put the price at roughly ~$1,148,484k per unit, which in turn is only $426,367k less than a Burke (on a good year).<br />Of course; considering that my design called for a ship that was better armored than some WW2 Light Cruisers, had a fairly massive CIWS suite, and performed pretty much similar to a Spruance-class DD (which the Burkes replaced); it's actually a sizable saving. In fact, if it had another 32 VLS cells, I'd say it was pretty much a Burke Flight IIA's parallel.<br /><br />/That/ being said, I was halfway being entirely silly with that particular design (seriously, who ever heard of a DD that's better armored than a Cruiser?). Being realistic, I'm fairly certain that streamlined DDKs and DDAAs are VERY possible for under 800M each - total - depending mostly on the specification limits placed on the design.<br />Me sitting here designing ships on my own whims incurs the same problem as giving Gibbs and Cox (for the really good designs they do produce) bottom limits and otherwise telling them to go crazy. I throw absolutely whatever catches my fancy into the design if I think it would be beneficial in the mission of the ship, even if I should know better.<br />Yeah, I have self-control issues.<br />Honestly, if I cut out everything that didn't absolutely need to be there in a DDAA/DDK/DE/FF (including the armor and the 5” gun, mind), the price drops to somewhere around ~$765,800k (naturally, it differs on the role – DDAA/DEs don't NEED flight capabilities), AFTER construction (slightly more than a LCS, but it's a NGFS incapable DD). Meaning, yes, you could build two of them for the price of a Burke on a Burke's bad year (which was apparently 2014).<br /><br />-char.limit snip-<br /><br />- Ray D.Ray D.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-78408975026733049912015-03-24T20:24:19.176-07:002015-03-24T20:24:19.176-07:00Smitty,
I just got into that document though a di...Smitty,<br /><br />I just got into that document though a different method (I borrowed someone else's computer).<br />It's been VERY insightful, I can't thank you enough for sending me its way.<br /><br /><br />CNO,<br /><br />Since I got into that document that Smitty referred to, I now have a much better idea of what's going on with my figures, including some errors made in my earlier post. <br /><br />Give me a bit to type this one up, if you would. This could be fun (for me, at least).<br /><br />- Ray D.Ray D.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-1621032505531879212015-03-23T13:52:32.828-07:002015-03-23T13:52:32.828-07:00Smitty,
I have a feeling that document would make...Smitty,<br /><br />I have a feeling that document would make my ship/boat-designing life a whole lot easier.<br />Unfortunately, either my ISP or my computer itself appears to have blocked access the site.<br />All I get is an Access Denied message saying something about my system denying access to the site.<br />I'm beginning to wonder if they (my ISP or Hewlett Packard) are a bunch of commies, considering that appears to be a US Gov site.<br />No, all joking aside, I can't get into that document and it's making me a very sad camper, but I'll live.<br /><br />However, the figures you mentioned seem reasonable if for some reason they only counted 2 Burkes under the 2014 construction list, which would seem to match other budget related documents (I was sure there were three at that stage last year, but oh well), so I'll accept the numbers. Thank you for clearing that up.<br /><br />- Ray D.Ray D.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-87313911628337953622015-03-23T13:50:05.787-07:002015-03-23T13:50:05.787-07:00CNO,
My price points were for the most part from ...CNO,<br /><br />My price points were for the most part from various receipts and reports that I could scrounge up off the internet and a select few other places over the course of some years (and adjusted for inflation).<br />On other parts, I cheated entirely and asked experts/suppliers/consumers directly (my uncle worked for the Big 4 and a couple of the factories in my area actually use GE's LM series - including the LM 2500 - as generators).<br />Thus, I can't provide sources for most of my claims, I admit, and the individual prices can vary quite a bit (which is one of the reasons that I typically attempt to overshoot, but - as you can imagine - that becomes hard when trying to constrain oneself to a budget).<br /><br />The VLS' price was one of the old ones that, honestly, I should have checked on before speaking of - especially considering how easy it was to find up-to-date information.<br />A Lockheed-Martin press release from June of 2014 indicated that the cost of a “MK41 Vertical Launching System” was $10M per as a cost-plus-fixed-fee contract. Considering how a MK41 is installed, I think it unlikely that that price is not full completion. The release did not, however, indicate if it was speaking of a single 8-cell unit or a 62-cell unit (same as my older reference). I'll again err on the side of caution and say it's the 8-cell. So, my 4.8M/8-cell_unit was off by half, but only by ~$5M each (~$30M total in the case of the 62-cell).<br />Still, it's my mistake.<br /><br />As for the Burke breakdown... well, I don't have a parts list for the Burke! *Laugh*<br />No, in all honesty, I don't have the plans for the Burkes as even the plans for the old Farragut DDs are still classified and the last one of them was scrapped in the mid 90's.<br />That being said, I can try to offer some guesstimates based on what I do know.<br />In 'short' form (because I'll be rambling enough for one post anyway):<br /><br />Hull<br />[Steel = ~$5M]<br />[Aluminum = ~$260k]<br />[Construction = ~$100M] This is because the addition of Aluminum. Most welders will overcharge just for working near aluminum thanks to historical lawsuits about welding steel near structural aluminum weakening it, or something along those lines.<br /><br />Powerplant/Propulsion<br />[4 x GE LM-2500 GTs @ ~$10M ea = ~$40M]<br />[3 x Allison 501KB GTs @ ~$2M ea = ~$6M] I'm not actually sure this is the right GT, but it's close.<br />[2 x Shafts with Controllable/Reversible Pitch propellers of roughly ~12' diameter with integrally installed Prairie system @ ~$180M ea = $360M] Probably the single most mechanically complex part of the ship.<br />[2 x Rudders = Negligible (included in Hull)]<br /><br />Aviation Facilities and Equipment<br />[...] Seriously, looking at what it's supposed to have, $250M isn't an unreasonable assumption. There's a reason that I called for the spartan Perry-style hangers (although going full blown on the ASW ship is tempting).<br /><br />Weapons<br />[1 x 64-cell MK41 VLS @ ~$60M]<br />[1 x 32-cell MK41 VLS @ ~$30M]<br />[1 x 5” gun (caliber differs)] This one I actually have no idea on. Based upon design principles and the relative cost of manufacturing the individual components of similar equipment, I'd estimate close to $80M for the entire system... but seriously, I honestly have no clue.<br />[1 x Phalanx CIWS @ ~$6M] Price adjusted for inflation from 2011 figures.<br />[2 x MK32 SVTT] There are no public figures that I could find. Given what it is however, I'd estimate $10M per (there's actually no reason that they should cost as much as a Phalanx, but this was what I figured for the above ships, so wherever I take it from here, I take it from there).<br /><br />...And I'm out of characters. However, we're already at $950M, so I think you can tell where I was going. I haven't even gotten into the sensors and electronics yet, let alone other expensive items like the Hollywood-Shower desalination plant estimate (>$34M).<br /><br />- Ray D.Ray D.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-29798227099794490732015-03-23T11:43:29.621-07:002015-03-23T11:43:29.621-07:00Ray,
I went by the 2016 Navy budget submissions.
...Ray,<br /><br />I went by the 2016 Navy budget submissions.<br /><br />http://www.finance.hq.navy.mil/FMB/16pres/SCN_BOOK.pdf<br /><br />(Pgs 8-1 through 8-19)<br /><br />The hardware unit costs for SQQ-89 is only $22-34 million each, but when all the extras are included, it's $16-18 million more. (See 8-9 for the breakdown for SQQ-89)<br /><br /><br />B.Smittyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12650152449414871058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-11102006604240531692015-03-23T05:39:38.070-07:002015-03-23T05:39:38.070-07:00Ray, there are two kinds of cost figures. One is ...Ray, there are two kinds of cost figures. One is what ought to be. We all indulge in that from time to time and rightfully so. Those figures are typically far less than reality. Nothing wrong with that. We need to have a grasp on what ought to be in order to better discuss what is.<br /><br />The other figures are, of course, what really is. <br /><br />I'm not completely sure which set you're offering.<br /><br />Regardless, it would be a fascinating exercise to take your individual component costs (for a VLS, for example) and subtract them one by one from the known cost of a real ship (a Burke, for example) and see what the result is after all the ship's equipment is accounted for. In theory, if you're using real numbers (which I think is what you're doing?) then the remainder at the end of the exercise would be zero if your component numbers are realistic. On the other hand, if your remainder is significantly non-zero then your component figures are suspect. This is not a gotcha attempt - it would genuinely be interesting and would either validate your figures our suggest that further refinement is called for. Take a shot and tell us how it works out, maybe?<br /><br />Note: Of course, this leads back to my previous comment about the true cost of a ship. Do you factor in that Aegis system that was only half paid for up front and was completed during post-delivery via another account line? Not a straight forward exercise but it would still be fun to try.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-79331219110457572262015-03-23T05:30:05.754-07:002015-03-23T05:30:05.754-07:00Unexplored, indeed! So many topics, so little tim...Unexplored, indeed! So many topics, so little time. One can only hope that an enterprising and knowledgable person will come forward and offer a post on the topic to follow up on your excellent lead-in. ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-54680274596470842372015-03-22T20:54:59.331-07:002015-03-22T20:54:59.331-07:00"Ray, your first post got routed to the spam ..."Ray, your first post got routed to the spam folder. I rerouted it as soon as I saw it. Posts occasionally go to spam for no reason I can discern and I have no control over it beyond rerouting after the fact. Sorry!"<br /><br />Ah. I can explain it then.<br />I use a word processor to form the bulk of my texts (so I can see the character count while I'm typing),<br />Blogger's filter was probably reacting to the hidden formatting code traces left behind from the copy/paste and assumed it was spam generated by a bot, since the traces are almost identical (the bots were made that way on purpose).<br />I'll know this much for next time and just wait, thanks for explaining.<br /><br />- Ray D.Ray D.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-70127304896731553212015-03-22T20:49:06.667-07:002015-03-22T20:49:06.667-07:00...Today has not been my best day for grammar eith......Today has not been my best day for grammar either, apparently.<br />(I'm coming very close to creating an account somewhere just so I can delete/edit some of my err'd comments.)<br /><br />-Ray D.Ray D.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-15576070018081777422015-03-22T20:49:00.924-07:002015-03-22T20:49:00.924-07:00Ray, your first post got routed to the spam folder...Ray, your first post got routed to the spam folder. I rerouted it as soon as I saw it. Posts occasionally go to spam for no reason I can discern and I have no control over it beyond rerouting after the fact. Sorry!ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-70885766996954929642015-03-22T20:44:03.617-07:002015-03-22T20:44:03.617-07:00...For some reason, it sent through the first post......For some reason, it sent through the first post only appeared after I made the second post (where I removed a paragraph thinking that the char.limit was to blame).<br />Sorry about that.Ray D.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-15560271748712180122015-03-22T20:17:19.144-07:002015-03-22T20:17:19.144-07:00It appears that my posts keep disappearing. I'...It appears that my posts keep disappearing. I'll try again.<br /><br />[Burkes as Cruisers]<br /><br />I've been saying that the US Navy is way too top heavy for years; without a foundation, any force structure will crumble. But note that I ID'd them as 'light cruisers'.<br />Historically, CLs have pretty much been one-hit-wonders since they can't trade shots with even equal opponents, pretty much being just overgrown Destroyer Leaders. By the by, I would also rate the Ticos as Anti-Air Light Cruisers...<br />If you can't tell, I'm indicating that the US Navy (IMHO) cannot sustain serious sub-capital surface combat either. So, IMHO we actually need a dedicated Sub-Capital Surface Fighter too (such as CVLs, CCs, CBs, or CAs).<br /><br />[Cost of Ships]<br /><br />All of my figures and estimates are based on supply-side numerics. <br />Basically, I tried to estimate the various dynamics required to create each unit, from the competency of the workforce, the availability of the industry, parts acquisition, involved man-hours, skilled labor hours, and so on.<br />My conclusion was for these ships as it was for my boats - the cost of construction would be determined by the rate of production (mainly because the more efficient use of salaried skilled labor). My guess is that the costs would bottom out if six of these ships were being produced at the same time and yard on an expedited production schedule.<br />This is, of course, assuming that the ship was actually designed with real world construction and operation in mind and was NOT designed on (virtual) paper to be some kind of magical fairy carrier powered by pixie dust.<br />Thus, I factored in the use of easily formed shapes and modular Lego-brick construction (where applicable) specifically in order to ease the burden on the shipyard (and speed up production).<br />That being said, I disagree with the delivery of half finished goods, so I factor complete construction at the ship yard into my man-hours and applied some wiggle room for the fitting out period. It would actually be a fair bit over what I cited, but well within my 60% wiggle room.<br />In the end, it comes down to work ethics. I say ease of production and simple design integrity ensure quality ships which let the crews do their jobs; they say bleeding edge whizzbangs win wars so let's pile all the new techno-bobbles on the hull that we can, production quality be ******.<br /><br />[Physical costs of Manning]<br /><br />Don't worry, I haven't forgotten them. In fact, I pointed out the manning as the singular problem with the larger numbers of smaller ships. Optimally, the small ships would have the same crew as a larger Burke. The cost of the construction of the facilities to support this manpower is minimal in comparison to actually providing that manpower.<br />That being said, the control systems and crew allotment were already factored into my prices. For instance, a 8-cell VLS unit is actually only $4.8M; the figures I gave are actually ~$6M over cost, specifically because of the crew/operation-side issues.<br /><br />[Helo Crew/Hanger]<br /><br />17. 4 crew for each helo (including 2 officers each), 8 on-ship maintenance, 1 flight officer. This is actually making it easy for the crew considering the type of maintenance performed on-ship.<br />Space for this crew (and maintenance) is actually relatively cheap to acquire IF the ship is designed correctly. That being said, this is a significant cost in the ship's construction that was figured as part of the hull (as complexity).<br /><br />“So, by all means have fun with numbers and use them to explore alternate force structures...”<br /><br />That is pretty much all we can do here on the civilian side, right?<br /><br />- Ray D.Ray D.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-81948644124559460842015-03-22T18:58:55.095-07:002015-03-22T18:58:55.095-07:00[Burkes as Cruisers]
I've been saying that th...[Burkes as Cruisers]<br /><br />I've been saying that the US Navy is way too top heavy for years; without a foundation, any force structure will crumble. But note that I ID'd them as 'light cruisers'.<br />Historically, CLs have pretty much been one-hit-wonders since they can't trade shots with even equal opponents, pretty much being just overgrown Destroyer Leaders. By the by, I would also rate the Ticos as Anti-Air Light Cruisers...<br />If you can't tell, I'm indicating that the US Navy (IMHO) cannot sustain serious sub-capital surface combat either. So, IMHO we actually need a dedicated Sub-Capital Surface Fighter too (such as CVLs, CCs, CBs, or CAs).<br /><br />[Cost of Ships]<br /><br />All of my figures and estimates are based on supply-side numerics. <br />Basically, I tried to estimate the various dynamics required to create each unit, from the competency of the workforce, the availability of the industry, parts acquisition, involved man-hours, skilled labor hours, and so on.<br />My conclusion was for these ships as it was for my boats - the cost of construction would be determined by the rate of production (mainly because the more efficient use of salaried skilled labor). My guess is that the costs would bottom out if six of these ships were being produced at the same time and yard on an expedited production schedule.<br />This is, of course, assuming that the ship was actually designed with real world construction and operation in mind and was NOT designed on (virtual) paper to be some kind of magical fairy carrier powered by pixie dust.<br />Thus, I factored in the use of easily formed shapes and modular Lego-brick construction (where applicable) specifically in order to ease the burden on the shipyard (and speed up production).<br />That being said, I disagree with the delivery of half finished goods, so I factor complete construction at the ship yard into my man-hours and applied some wiggle room for the fitting out period. It would actually be a fair bit over what I cited, but well within my 60% wiggle room.<br />In the end, it comes down to work ethics. I say ease of production and simple design integrity ensure quality ships which let the crews do their jobs; they say bleeding edge whizzbangs win wars so let's pile all the new techno-bobbles on the hull that we can, production quality be ******.<br /><br />[Physical costs of Manning]<br /><br />Don't worry, I haven't forgotten them. In fact, I pointed out the manning as the singular problem with the larger numbers of smaller ships. Optimally, the small ships would have the same crew as a larger Burke. The cost of the construction of the facilities to support this manpower is minimal in comparison to actually providing that manpower.<br />That being said, the control systems and crew allotment were already factored into my prices. For instance, a 8-cell VLS unit is actually only $4.8M; the figures I gave are actually ~$6M over cost, specifically because of the crew/operation-side issues.<br /><br />[Helo Crew/Hanger]<br /><br />17. 4 crew for each helo (including 2 officers each), 8 on-ship maintenance, 1 flight officer. This is actually making it easy for the crew considering the type of maintenance performed on-ship.<br />Space for this crew (and maintenance) is actually relatively cheap to acquire IF the ship is designed correctly. That being said, this is a significant cost in the ship's construction that was figured as part of the hull (as complexity).<br /><br />“So, by all means have fun with numbers and use them to explore alternate force structures...”<br /><br />That is pretty much all we can do here on the civilian side, right?<br /><br />“...but recognize that they are highly suspect and that isolated system costs are even more unrealistic.”<br /><br />You realize that most of the components (excluding the radar/sonar/system control units) that I've been referring to are commercially available, right? Other pieces have been either overbuilt COTS or Civilian-Custom equivalents.<br /><br />- Ray D.Ray D.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-53346303984550644732015-03-22T18:24:29.054-07:002015-03-22T18:24:29.054-07:00CNO,
This topic has spun in many directions (sort...CNO,<br /><br />This topic has spun in many directions (sort of like the USN and USMC...), but one issue left critically unexplored is the absolute mess that is troop vertical lift in USMC. <br /><br />The USMC H-1/H-46/H-53 was suboptimal, but at least workable at a tactical level compared to the Army H-60/H47 program, but the USMC insistence on the V-22/H-53K is both foolish at the tactical and strategic (procurement) levels. And this does not take into account the impact of the FVL programs which will leave the Marine Corps with inadequate numbers, of technically inferior airframes, that cost 3-5 times as much to procure and maintain as their Army counterparts- and if that was not bad enough, the corps will be left with airframes that are ill suited for “full spectrum” vertical envelopment while *maximizing* blue casualties. <br /><br />I have said it before, but right now the USA can assemble a much more effective and flexible vertical envelopment force for ship to shore forced entry operations than the USMC, and the army can do it with existing force structure and equipment. This debacle started in late 1980s when the Corps decided to double down (twice!) on its fetish with the V-22 and CH-53, even as the Army converted to the H-60/H47. I am putting down a marker that the CH-53K is going to cost almost $150Million per copy by the time it enters LRIP - 2014 projections are $126M, but we know those costs are going to climb. When that happens, two (2) CH-53Ks are going to cost about as much as ten (10!) of the latest H-47s and will not even offer any real practical advantage at the airframe level.<br /><br />GABAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-57543013753365257292015-03-22T05:20:36.291-07:002015-03-22T05:20:36.291-07:00Ray, you're quite right about the need for des...Ray, you're quite right about the need for destroyers that are expendable.<br /><br />If we consider Burkes as cruisers or "battleships" then our force structure is badly out of balance. That gives us lots of cruisers and no destroyers or escorts of any type. Again, it shows the need for a smaller, cheaper, DD and DE.<br /><br />You're getting heavy into cost figures and I would offer a caution. The Navy's cost figures are wrapped in accounting manipulations. In addition to whatever cost figures are published, the true cost of a ship also includes government furnished equipment, the type and amount of which varies from ship to ship and the cost of which is largely unknown. Add to this the Navy's increasing tendency over the last decade or two to accept unfinished ships which have to be completed in post-delivery fitting out periods. This post-delivery completion construction work is paid out of the post-delivery outfitting budget which is separate from the ship's construction budget. This post-delivery completion is not trivial. The LPD-17, for example, was delivered with 1.1M man-hours of construction work needing to be done. The LCSs have each been delivered with varying amounts of incomplete compartments. The Navy is now engaged in intentional deferral of construction work for the Ford due to bumping up against the spending cap. Finally, there is, of course, the normal post-delivery fitting out work which has always been part of ship construction and which is paid for out of a separate budget.<br /><br />So, the true cost of a ship is the advertised construction cost + GFE + post-delivery incomplete construction + post-delivery outfitting.<br /><br />Also, don't overlook the physical cost aspects of manning. For every weapon or system you add to a hull you also have to add the berthing, heads, galley space, stores, HVAC, and propulsive power to man the weapon or system. So, if you add a $1 VLS you need to add $0.25 (or whatever the actual ratio'ed cost figure would be) for the crew to maintain and operate it. That helo and hangar comes with significant crew requirements and all their berthing and support structures and costs as well as spares storage, machine shops, etc.<br /><br />So, by all means have fun with numbers and use them to explore alternate force structures but recognize that they are highly suspect and that isolated system costs are even more unrealistic.<br /><br />All that said, I completely agree with your concept!<br />ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-27978404549947238262015-03-21T20:32:45.233-07:002015-03-21T20:32:45.233-07:00Smitty,
Your price figure seems off to me.
A 2014...Smitty,<br /><br />Your price figure seems off to me.<br />A 2014 supply-side report seems to indicate that the US government only paid GE ~$47 million for the years worth of SQQ-89 systems (which is to say 3 of them), including the price of components (up to and including the sonar itself) and the installation.<br />That comes out to roughly ~$15.7 million a piece; and this was for the Flight III Burkes, mind.<br /><br />Have you ever considered the possibility that the Navy is intentionally padding the budget with bloated figures in order to cover up the ever-increasing cost of the super-capitals (Nimitzs/Fords)?<br /><br />CNO,<br /><br />This may seem a little odd, but what you've been saying here made me start thinking.<br />If one considers the Burkes as Light Cruisers (which is what they are in size, capability, and cost), then they start seeming mighty fine as they are; I'd leave them that way with merely a reclassification.<br /><br />The problem becomes the fact we have no capable AAW or ASW system on a platform small and cheap enough to be considered disposable in the grand scheme of a prolonged war.<br />History tells us that hulls performing either of these missions will be the first things to suffer attrition, meaning that they must be replaceable rapidly, which I think we can all agree that the Burkes cannot be.<br /><br />Personally, I think the navy needs to get over its Big Horse Syndrome and get back to the Tin-Can Destroyer model. <br />Which is to say that I agree with you, in principle.<br />Although, I think that Destroyers MUST be capable of ASW as a requirement, I do not think that they all have to be bleeding-edge Hunter-Killers.<br />Personally, I think that we need to revisit the Fletcher/Sumner-Gearing concepts. I could expand more on this, but for the sake of char. limits, I'll refrain. Suffice to say, I'm proposing enhanced and stretched versions of the Sumner-Gearings.<br /><br />I'm adamant that such ships could be easily built for the DD role at a 2:1 replacement for the Burkes.<br />Seriously, a 463' x 35' x 44' (my Submarine) block of solid Titanium would only cost $143M (0.16lb/in3 @ $8.70/lb), the same in HY-100 Steel would only cost $44M (0.283lb/in3 @ $1.49/lb). Factor in a 100% construction fee (for 2 years on the yard), and you get $286M and $88M, respectively.<br /><br />So, for your price comparison to a Burke's $1.843B...<br />For your ASW hull. Figuring $88M for the hull, Smitty's price of ~$52M for the SQQ-89 system (which had better include the sonar or I'm crying foul), ~$48M for a 'frigate' grade radar system, ~$62M for the helo hanger and related systems (similar to the Perry's), $30M for the electrical/propulsion system, ~$83M for weapons systems (including CIWS), ~$25M for on-board VLS systems (32 cells), and ~$60M for misc. This gives a price of roughly ~$448M.<br />For your AAW hull. Figuring ~$92M for the hull, ~$52M for the SQQ-89, ~$234M for the AEGIS system, ~$62M for Helo, ~$30M for the electrical/propulsion system, ~$120M for the weapons systems (including CIWS), ~$45M for the VLS System (62 cells), and misc costs of ~$60M. This gives a price of roughly ~$650M, or a combined cost of ~$1.098B for both ships.<br />...Sorry for the number rush.<br />Long story short: yes, you could replace a Burke with two ships that are each almost as capable as it for the same cost, even if my estimates are 60% off.<br />To top it all off, they'd both have BB-style protection schemes, providing them high survivability chances in the inevitability that they're hit, which is more than can be said about the Burkes/Ticos.<br />In the end, putting more hulls in the water is comparatively cheap, the problem becomes crewing them. Each ship would require about two thirds the manpower of a Burke for minimum damage control capability (ideally, crews would remain at roughly 300 per ship), thus you'd be increasing the labor costs by half or more.<br /><br />- Ray D.Ray D.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-43841094187758841622015-03-21T11:15:02.620-07:002015-03-21T11:15:02.620-07:00Smitty, thanks for the link. I'm familiar wit...Smitty, thanks for the link. I'm familiar with many of the "campaigns" included in the book but I was unaware of the book itself. It looks well worth the read. I'll see if I can get it.<br /><br />I took a look at the preview and encountered this gem.<br /><br />"I must hasten to add some caveats, first by stressing what this book does not claim: It does not claim that air power alone won these wars nor even that air power was the decisive element in victory."<br /><br />Hmm ... I seem to recall a discussion about air power not playing a decisive role in assaults very often. Admittedly, this is world class cherry picking of a quote on my part!ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-19578586587972480182015-03-19T19:16:19.608-07:002015-03-19T19:16:19.608-07:00CNO,
If you have an extra $10 (Kindle edition), t...CNO,<br /><br />If you have an extra $10 (Kindle edition), take a read of this book,<br /><br />"Danger Close: Tactical Air Controllers in Afghanistan and Iraq"<br /><br />http://www.amazon.com/Danger-Close-Controllers-Afghanistan-Williams-Ford-ebook/dp/B005HMNTZ4/ref=tmm_kin_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&sr=&qid=<br /><br />These are the guys who actually called in the CAS in both conflicts.<br /><br />ALL tactical and most strategic aircraft were used very effectively. A-10s got their fair share of business but so did every other F-teen in the inventory as well as B-1s and B-52s. <br /><br />B.Smittyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12650152449414871058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-16860672874787726422015-03-19T18:14:35.137-07:002015-03-19T18:14:35.137-07:00I was thinking a combined army/ marine seaborne fo...I was thinking a combined army/ marine seaborne force. Marines aboard the assault ships making the initial landings and securing the beachhead with the more mobile army then leapfrogging ahead to secure inland objectives.<br /><br />If the marines are given limited objectives - in terms of distance - then why not have armour that is heavier then the army? Merkava style tanks and IFVs with large internal volumes and auxiliary power units would be largely self sufficient for several days if they didnt have to move too far.<br /><br />Getting heavy armour to the beach in an initial assault has to be a combination of tank landing craft and LCAC. Some of the new European designs look like they have the potential to self deploy if used from forward bases. Use the well deck space for the LCAC's.<br /><br />I feel the landing craft has the potential to provide not only a means of getting vehicles to the shore but also to be able to provide rocket fire support and possibly air defence. Why not load up some old landing craft with chaff/ infrared decoy mortars and send them remotely ahead of a landing force? The marines need to be war gaming ways of doing this rather then waiting for industry to come up with ever more expensive ways of getting lighter troops further afield.Davehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06835011708104671751noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-63362608002175964912015-03-19T17:05:20.391-07:002015-03-19T17:05:20.391-07:00"There will be losses. Low/Slow aircraft will..."There will be losses. Low/Slow aircraft will fair worse, armor or not."<br /><br />I fear you miss the point about aircraft employment. The goal is not survival in combat. If that were the case, we would just keep our aircraft home. The goal is mission success. If the mission requires a blazing fast aircraft, great. If the mission requires a painfully slow aircraft, also great.<br /><br />You keep wanting to compare survival of an F-16, or whatever, against an A-10. Hey, there's no doubt that an F-teen blazing through the target area at Mach 17 will be more survivable. On the other hand, the F-teen won't even see the target area and will have no hope of accomplishing the mission. Once the F-teen slows down enough to get eyeballs on a target, understand the terrain and movement of friendly and enemy forces, evaluate and prioritize the targets, and then carefully (it's called CLOSE air support for a reason) deliver ordnance, you'll basically have an A-10, only without the armor and inherent survivability.<br /><br />You also want to lump intermediate range strike in with CAS. Sure, any bomber flying at 50,000 ft can drop a LGB if someone provides a spot but that's not CAS or, at best, it's a very limited subset under very special conditions and even then few ground forces are going to want to be under such a weapon release.<br /><br />If you want to survive and accomplish nothing, use the fastest plane available (or stay home). If you want to accomplish the mission, you generally need to get lower and slower.<br /><br />Can an F-16 release weapons? Yes. Can it conduct effective CAS? Not as well as an A-10, even if the training and focus were the same.<br />ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-26978370561042205672015-03-19T16:48:13.693-07:002015-03-19T16:48:13.693-07:00Dave, we struggled getting heavy armor ashore duri...Dave, we struggled getting heavy armor ashore during an assault throughout WWII and we've all but given up doing so today. Our "solution" has been to go light - fewer tanks, lighter personnel carriers, lighter "IFVs", less artillery, and so on. Ominously, the rest of the world is gearing up for heavier fighting. There's a disconnect between us and the rest of the world. When we meet China's heavy tanks or NKorea's heavy artillery or whoever's heavy forces with our Stryker brigades, we'll wind up regretting our move towards lightness.<br /><br />I completely agree that the Marines should have heavier tanks, artillery, HAPCs, IFVs and whatnot so that we can conduct opposed landings with a chance of success. Remember, the Navy has no significant gun support and air power will be tied up defending the fleet so the Marines are going to have to make do with whatever they can bring ashore. If the extent of their armor is AAVs with 0.50 cal MGs, they'll be in a world of hurt!<br /><br />The Army should be even heavier. They are the slower responding but immensely more powerful hammer. Nothing wrong with having a few lighter airborne, air assault units but the bulk of the Army should be armored overkill.<br /><br />The Marines need heavier armor and they need to figure out how to get it ashore in the initial waves.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.com