tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post4274821675758504889..comments2024-03-28T07:56:09.239-07:00Comments on Navy Matters: Modern BattleshipComNavOpshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comBlogger97125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-2404428173274034342019-08-17T08:04:32.454-07:002019-08-17T08:04:32.454-07:00One of the problems afflicting modern naval ship d...One of the problems afflicting modern naval ship designers is the desire to incorporate every capability into every ship instead of recognizing that ships sail and fight as groups. Each member of the group has (or should have) its own special capability and the group benefits from the sum of the parts.<br /><br />You want to add VLS with Standard missiles and ESSM. Why? As you correctly point out, a BB will sail with Burke escorts which are highly capable Aegis/AAW platforms and are packed with Standard/ESSM. Why duplicate that on a BB? And, if you're not duplicating Standard then there's no need for any advanced radar system. A basic TRS-3D/4D, or something similar, would suffice. See? We're saving money already and focusing the BB's tasks so they can actually get good at one or two things instead of trying to do everything and doing none of it well.<br /><br />To an extent, the same applies to very long range gun rounds. While greater range is nice, in the abstract, we have other assets that can conduct deep strike and do it better (aircraft, UAVs, Tomahawks, etc.). Why duplicate? Greater range also highlights the problem of targeting. It does no good to have a 10,000 mile gun round if our targeting capability is only good for 20 miles. The gun rounds don't need any more range than the sensors have and in a peer war, which is what a BB is intended for, the fantasy of UAVs leisurely flying over a deep battlefield and providing targeting is just that - a fantasy. The lifespan of UAVs over a peer battlefield will be measured in minutes.<br /><br />All that aside, your basic concept is fine and I could readily get on board!ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-79481161145299830592019-08-17T01:28:52.713-07:002019-08-17T01:28:52.713-07:00Ok thanks Com.
With ref. to having Battleships in ...Ok thanks Com.<br />With ref. to having Battleships in this day & age, I think the best way to go about it is to get a couple of the Iowas reactivated. May be the USS Iowa & Wisconsin, if they are in good condition. This way you can save on a lot of costs by not having to build any new units while still being able to get a couple of the floating sledgehammers into action. Get them properly refurbished/modified/upgraded, with the Iowa especially getting it's No. 2 turret fixed up or may be swapped for Missouri's or New Jersey's turret. If around $2-2.5 billion can be spent, you'd most probably be able to get a ship like - https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-5113e2ca72e43bf666bfaf58042db647<br />If you can spend $3-3.5 billion, you probably can get a ship like - https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-ce0780fe7961a84340fc7a2b13abc0a4<br />The above version has a complete Thales AESPAR mast setup. <br />I'm sure the no. of VLS cells aft of turret 3 can be increased from 40 to 48 in both versions. May be the extra 8 cells can be of the tactical version of the MK41, able to carry a mix of 8 quadpacked ESSMs, 3 SM3s & 3 SM6s.<br />I think it would be great if they can also install a couple of AGM-114L Hellfire VLS modules to deal with suicide boat swarms. Ref - https://www.upi.com/Defense-News/2019/07/26/Navy-test-fires-Hellfire-missile-from-littoral-combat-ship/5271564163295/<br />The 16" guns will be able to fire the standard HE & AP 16" rounds and also ERGMs - probably in the form of 10" guided sabot rounds with a range of 160-200 kms. I'm sure the USN can get them at reasonable prices if they collaborate with Italy's Leonardo Co. The 5" guns should be able to fire standard 5" ammo and Leonardo's ER Vulcano rounds that have a range of around 100 kms. Ref - https://www.leonardocompany.com/en/products/vulcano-127mm<br />Check their linked brochure for detailed info if needed..<br />If cost is no object (wishful thinking), then the USN can go all out with ships like the one designed by this guy - https://imgur.com/a/mU6D1<br />A modernized or modern BBG like the above examples will definitely have reduced crew numbers coz of the new automated 5" & AA guns & also coz of the new turbine systems replacing the old boiler units, thereby also saving on costs in the long run. Whatever the case, the BBG will have to be escorted by a couple of properly armed & equipped Flight 2A Burkes. May be a TF of 1 BBG, 2 Burkes, an armed supply ship & VA class attack sub can be used in most hot cases instead of a whole CVBG armada with it's 70-80 fighters & 5000+ personnel...thereby further reducing ops costs, which seems to be what the bureaucrats want everytime.ussiowa9https://www.blogger.com/profile/05109483069415732180noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-8913086472943218852019-08-16T05:54:36.851-07:002019-08-16T05:54:36.851-07:00Yes. Comments on old posts (more than 30 days old...Yes. Comments on old posts (more than 30 days old) are moderated so they won't appear instantly but, if valid, they will be approved and appear in fairly short order. This is done to prevent spam comments on older posts.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-16493931828497897972019-08-16T00:54:03.958-07:002019-08-16T00:54:03.958-07:00Hi, I just stumbled onto this very interesting/inf...Hi, I just stumbled onto this very interesting/informative site. Would it be possible/ok to still post comments on this topic?<br />Regardsussiowa9https://www.blogger.com/profile/05109483069415732180noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-30094435229534010502017-07-10T13:26:48.277-07:002017-07-10T13:26:48.277-07:00I've seen this conversation had before, but th...I've seen this conversation had before, but this is the first time I've thrown in my two cents. First, let it be known that I love the Iowas. As a kid, their namesake was the first ship I ever boarded. Militarily, they maxed the NGF capability, they had multiple varieties of surface attack, and they were very well defended. But they were always a surface-attack platform. They don't need a huge AAW suite - CG / DDG escort. They don't need an a highly-advanced ASW outfit - DDG / SSN escort. They don't need their own airwing - at $5B-$13B a copy, I think the CVNs have that pretty well covered. They don't need ABM- capable radar - Aegis can be networked. In my humble opinion, the only job they would need to fill that isn't already covered is the shore-bombardment role, which would actually create a great argument for terminating the ridiculous (again, my opinion) LCS program. The best way (I stress the "my opinion" thing again) the Iowa design could be improved for the job properly preformed by a BB, to keep them militarily significant and carry an affordable total ownership cost, would be to modernize the main mounts to handle (4) 155mm barrels each, replace (4) mk38 turrets with Mk45s, replace (4) Mk38 turrets with SeaRAM mounts, add (8) mk32 mounts, upgrade the engine and funnel systems to accommodate an adequate LM2500-based propulsion system, update the EW suite to modern, non-Aegis standards, re-work the electrical system to carry all-electric utilities, and completely revamp accommodations and hotel services. Their original armor specs could absorb much more punishment in the littoral than could some floating piece of tin foil with an Uzi taped to the bow, they do not supplant other platforms from their roles (preserving political support from legislators heavily vested in the continued desireability of those platforms - except the LCS proponents), use common ammunition and fuel (minimizing their logistic footprint and greatly reducing the size of their supply chain by employing a high degree of system-commonality with the rest of the fleet), and the Marines would finally have the NGF support they need. <br /><br />Other benefits include the fact that the existing design already fits through all global, militarily-significant choke points; increased ordering of existing systems can help reduce the cost of upgrades, repairs, and new-builds of existing platforms; (I'm guessing that) existing ASM systems are meant to defeat modern (i.e., thinner) armor, so they'd probably be some of the most damage-resistant platforms afloat; removal of large, antiquated equipment and the subsequent reduction of the ship's company provides more space for power-generation, crew amenities, ammunition, fuel, or victuals, etc.; additional space also provides for an increase in buoyancy and stability allowances; elimination of steams lines a) increases the availabilty of the output of existing potable water generation capabilities, and b) aids in corrosion control; and lastly, leaving the weapon- and magazine-layout largely unchanged retains the lethality-minimalization from single hits retained at decommissioning. I think the biggest fiscal pain in the ass would be the retention of the ABLs and Harpoon racks, since they have given way to (unproposed for this ship) mk41 VLS systems in the rest of the fleet. I specifically propose NOT replacing these launchers with VLS because it will just temp critical minds to want to include SM3/SM6, thereby necessitating changes to the structural design and including illumination radars. At that point, we're right back to attempting to introduce the jack-of-all-trades that has been rejected by every Congress and administration since the proposal of the Sea Contol Ship 40 years ago. One man's opinion, but if the idea of discussing a viable platform doesn't address it's likely inclusion in any foreseeable defense budget, then we have inadvertently removed the concept of viability.Billy Wadehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11882017648935043310noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-43709375485117074912017-03-17T14:48:14.916-07:002017-03-17T14:48:14.916-07:00I agree with you. A battle ship equipped with anti...I agree with you. A battle ship equipped with anti ship ballistic missiles is what the navy needs. Instead of spending billions on the Gerald Ford class carrier the defense department should spend that money on battle ships. In the near future 3D printing will make missiles and drones cheaper. Third World countries will be able to create their own anti ship missiles. A Gerald ford class carrier with dozens of f35s will be obsolete due to its short range compared to missiles. <br />THE NEXT NAVAL WAR WILL BE DETERMINED BY MISSILES AND DRONES. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-31435810305964467172016-02-03T13:04:49.080-08:002016-02-03T13:04:49.080-08:00Heck, I can do better than that.
English can be a...Heck, I can do better than that.<br /><br />English can be a fabulously-flexible tool to express dense stuff with.Trudy Schnabelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02049524622772323172noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-26889686625953237412016-02-03T12:44:09.700-08:002016-02-03T12:44:09.700-08:00"Ship-Builders may want to be pro-active on t..."Ship-Builders may want to be pro-active on that before some crude set of tools is built by any colors-Congress, since the whole philosophical spectrum has in each sector hard-core budgeteers that may act harshly in the face of out-of-plausible-control program-costs matched by equally-hard-to-stomach under-performance of the product that are indefensible before any Townhall-Meeting under any political flag."<br /><br />That is one downright awesome sentence (speaking grammatically, not about content). :)GaryVPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12095867585000026303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-64752858749471264572016-01-18T16:53:20.807-08:002016-01-18T16:53:20.807-08:00It is likely that yes, a monitor is needed.
You w...It is likely that yes, a monitor is needed.<br /><br />You will need a shallow draft as well for such a vessel, because it will need to support amphibious assaults and must be able to go close to the coast to support without running aground. <br /><br />The thing about the battleship is that it won't dominate, it's not the end-all be all that it has been portrayed as during the Dreadnought Era, but it does, if used correctly and well designed, have potential uses. <br /><br />Nobody would suggest an all carrier navy. They need escorts. Likewise, any gun or missile battleship will operate as a part of a larger navy, with smaller craft, carriers, submarines, and so on. AltandMainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01014823246265859953noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-74648912169953835352016-01-17T18:12:33.058-08:002016-01-17T18:12:33.058-08:00The exhaust is one of the more speculative aspects...The exhaust is one of the more speculative aspects. It's been done for smaller vessels but whether it's practical for this size vessel, I don't know. As far as noise, it might be somewhat akin to the Prairie/Masker system. Or not!<br /><br />Just to clarify, I was looking at two 6" triple mounts rather than three mounts. We made various 6" mounts in WWII and I would assume one of those designs would be dusted off and updated. Failing that, two 8" dual mounts would also suffice.<br /><br />Carry on!ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-73880842710185728592016-01-17T16:54:27.756-08:002016-01-17T16:54:27.756-08:00CNO,
I'm pleased to know the design was taken...CNO,<br /><br />I'm pleased to know the design was taken well.<br /><br />Due to your earlier concerns with technology procurement, I had attempted to stay strongly within the realms of tried technology with this design - with the notable exceptions of the AMDR and the IRBM tubes. Now that I know that there is some wiggle room (I'm laughing at myself for missing that plain and clear in your original comments), I would do some things differently.<br /><br />As for the armor, I chose 8" of armor as a general thickness as that will stop direct hits from everything in today's inventories shy of IRBMs and Nukes and, from my estimations, would severely dampen the force of the entire Mk41 64-cell set going off. For that reason, the VLS Pits were independently armored with that or more (12" in the case of the IRBM pit, which would probably not contain that blast in particular).<br /><br />As for the gunnery, I was unaware that you were wanting Three Gun mounts!<br />I had assumed that you wanted 1 or 2 6in guns themselves to make the vessel comparable to the Ticos in that regard.<br />However, now that I have been made aware, I can correct this. However, I am not confident that there is enough room in this design to allow for a second gun.<br />Also, there is currently no infrastructure or modernized systems to allow for more than single-gun gun housings, the last that I know of being designed in 1968. The Turret (legit turret as compared to gun housing) that I used was based upon the Korean Black Thunder 155mm (6.1in) artillery unit (their version of the M109A7). However, I can whip something up, I believe.<br /><br />Radar, I see your point on. I had left secondary radar units off of the spring style because I was not certain what units to use (I have not been following recent radar trends so much as trying to find the most compact/power battery units).<br />However, I have a few ideas for secondaries that I will incorporate into Scheme 2.<br /><br />IRBMs, I fully agree on.<br /><br />The forequarters real estate is mostly taken up by crew quarters and storage space. 6000 tons of supplies have to go somewhere!<br />Yet, I probably could sacrifice a little creature comfort and cram more war material in there<br /><br />On the topic of exhausts and IR, that had almost entirely slipped my mind, I admit.<br />I built the system off of the Burke's, seeing as they share common component families.<br />That being said, I'm not certain that subsurface discharge would be wise with the amount of noise that would generate. Submarines would already be this ship's Achilles' heel seeing as it has absolutely no way of even knowing they are there or have struck - the reason that I believe all major surface combatants should have at least running/navigational sonar (as compared to a towed array or VDS for hunter-killer work), but such was excluded from this design.<br /><br />I think I have some ideas to take this design farther now, speaking to you and Smitty.<br />Requesting permission to deviate from the specifications, 'a little'.<br /><br />- Ray D.Ray D.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-17556042487001205862016-01-17T15:38:22.008-08:002016-01-17T15:38:22.008-08:00I should have added that US Army 155mm M-109 unsta...I should have added that US Army 155mm M-109 unstabilized tracked howitzer has been fired off LCU-1610 type.<br /><br />And the German Navy temporarily mounted a 155mm PzH-2000 turret aboard a SACHSEN-class Destroyer, but 'navalization'-issues sitting up-front in the white water wash would have cost more in re-design/upgrades than testers were prepared for. Trudy Schnabelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02049524622772323172noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-38105887893498134722016-01-17T15:14:57.926-08:002016-01-17T15:14:57.926-08:00How about this contrarian perspective to spice thi...How about this contrarian perspective to spice things up some more ?!<br /><br />Here selected sections from the recent ARG Thread:<br /><br />IFS ?<br />Shore-Bombardment as a sanction ? <br />Or to perhaps support Marines ? <br /><br />Big guns close inshore ??!! <br />But no armor and only modest SAM and cannon self-defenses ? <br /><br />How about this organic to a 4-ship ARG/MEU ?<br />Too much ??<br /><br />PROCEEDINGS of July’13 featured LCU-F (200 tons of cargo at 19+ knots on 2400HP diesel-power and 1500+nm of range) She offers over 100-feet of vehicle lane internally under cover, invisible, thus challenging the targeting-priorities of the defenders. <br />- LCU-F was designed explicitly with LSD-41’s 440’ well-deck geometry in mind.<br />- Each LSD-41 could carry 6x LCU-F. <br />- With each LCU-F able to carry 3x M1A MBT (plus several dozens of walking infantry) in an extreme scenario e.g. 18 MBTs could be delivered at once, concurrently in 6 different locations if need be. Not a routine load but on certain occasions at solid capability to have on hand.<br /><br />- LCU-F was designed in 2005 with an ARG stand-off distance of 200nm or OTH-200 in mind, to ‘future-proof’ the ARG/MEU against evolving shore-defenses. 19kts from OTH-200 = approx.. 12hrs dusk-to-dawn travel incl. well-deck departure, unfolding, accepting 1x AH/UH each, reversing-maneuver, releasing AH/UH, and beach-approach.<br /><br />As barely touched on in that article, and discussed at some depth elsewhere subsequently, instead of tracked and wheel GCE-assets, with roll-in weapons-suites each standard LCU-F could also serve as Inshore Fire Support (IFS) for the landing and advancing GCE. LCU-F IFS would stay inshore just out of tank-gun and RPG-range while constantly maneuvering under her thrusters to frustrate reverse-battery.<br /><br />LCU-F could carry a twin M-110 203mm mount (approx.. 8” rounds) of ex-US Army artillery system. Limited with original 39-cal barrel and ammo to around 16-17nm of range on a fine day, modern 52-cal arti does over 30nm w/ 155mm. Therefore we should expect farther distances with a 52-cal barrel and guided ammo. As a tracked but otherwise open vehicle M-110 was kept around in NATO well into the ‘90s due to its nuclear capabilities…<br /><br />- With upgraded M-110 in her rear cargo-bay, the middle cargo-bay of LCU-F can carry M-270 12-tube MLRS, the ‘big brother’ of HIMARS. 12x9” tube-protectiles or 2x 24” N-ATACMS offers IFS up to well over 150nm (w/ option to 250nm) based on an expendable close-inshore 220 (light) -420-tons(loaded) platform highly maneuverable counter-battery resistant platform.<br /><br />- Both systems aboard say two LCU-F per 4-Ship E-ARG/MEU offer each about 400 203mm rounds and approximately 6x 12 9”missile reloads, or 14+ N-ATACMS.<br /><br />There is no such capability in the fleet and none is planned, since without a 21st-century heavy-lift Connector, none of this is possible. You sure will not see any DDG with IFS in mind anywhere close enough to shore where its guns could plausibly support the GCE. And missiles are finite in numbers.<br /><br />LCU-F with the in-the-well-deck on-demand slide-in IFS suite would not offer much target-signature for shore-defenses between constant movement and an air-draft of around 11-12 feet, plus telescoping FLIR etc.<br /><br />Sea-skimming systems may see her too late. And LCU-F's modest self-defenses of one or two VULCAN cannons and USMC's AVENGER stabilized STINGER/SIDEWINDER turret together with AN/MPQ-64 F1 40nm radar might serve to intercept these along with those aimed at the ARG OTH-100-200 offshore. <br /><br />Testing such a proposition would be exciting for structural engineers to confirm afloat their desk-top assumptions via 52-cal 203mm recoil under steady left-right firing-cadence of those stabilized and 90% vessel-aimed barrels. <br /><br />The ‘Land-Attack Destroyer’ narrative was always more of a hopeful vision than likely reality, since unless permanently attached to every ARG/MEU, they would never be where they’d do the most sudden 911-correct ARG/MEU-mission any good.<br />Trudy Schnabelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02049524622772323172noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-6681519545896390342016-01-17T15:04:29.882-08:002016-01-17T15:04:29.882-08:00Ray, nice design. Good work! Here's a few th...Ray, nice design. Good work! Here's a few thoughts since you designed this based on my comments.<br /><br />Armor: I would design armor to specific threats, meaning that rather than an overall xx" armor, I would design the underwater hull to resist under-keel torpedo blasts. I would design the hull above the waterline to resist cruise missiles and debris. The superstructure would be designed to resist missiles and 6" naval gun fire (the largest gun in any enemy fleet that I'm aware of our could reasonably anticipate). I would armor the VLS pits to protect the ship's internals in the event of a VLS explosion. And so on. This would likely result in uneven applications of armor. I would also rely heavily on non-traditional "armor" such as compressible void spaces, double or triple voids, shock mounted standoff armor plating, composite armor, ?reactive armor?, etc.<br /><br />The gun fit is two 6" triple mounts - necessary for gun support and lesser surface warfare (like sinking merchant ships rather than waste expensive missiles).<br /><br />Radar would have backups of a lesser capability. Something along the lines of TRS-4D or some such. Combined with the inherent redundancy of the full AMDR dual radars this would offer triple redundancy, in a sense.<br /><br />The IRBMs would be unlikely to fit in the Mk57 peripheral cells and would need their own custom sized cells. I would leave them clustered as you have them.<br /><br />That is a lot of unused real estate in the bow!<br /><br />Engine exhausts would be IR mitigated either by subsurface discharge or "waterfall" discharge through the side.<br /><br />Take these comments for what they're worth. All in all, a nice design! Thanks for sharing.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-28333578801888933232016-01-17T14:19:04.441-08:002016-01-17T14:19:04.441-08:00Oh, right, I forgot to mention that I see absolute...Oh, right, I forgot to mention that I see absolutely no reason that the cost of this hull should exceed $4B (unless the Navy Budgeting bloated costs even farther), probably only costing in the ballpark of $3.5B.<br />Thus, we're talking Zumwalt/Tico replacement costs here.<br /><br /><br />Smitty,<br /><br />I actually did consider that originally, but in the end I had decided against it for the following reasons.<br /><br />1) To do so, I would have to leave a giant strip of deck area completely unarmored (as compared to a localized hole). Not actually the biggest problem ever and was something that I was prepared for.<br />2) Being on the periphery compromises the Belt, Fore, and Aft armors. Again, not the end of the world.<br /><br />The problems with 1 and 2 are the fact that this design does NOT use the All-or-Nothing armor scheme - the entire ship is protected.<br />CNO made it clear that no expenses were to be spared with this design (we could theoretically always scale the design back to more reasonable levels later), so I utilized modern construction and covered the ship in about 8" of (modern) armor (adequate to stop almost anything up to IRBMs such as the Dong Feng).<br />The problem here is that the hull design at this point is already pushing its theoretical weight limits (it is smaller than the Iowa by far but weighs almost as much) and I could not afford the weight of basically doubling the 8" armor steel (that would have probably put the hull in the same weight class as the Yamato).<br /><br />Also,<br />3) This ship, by requirements, has to carry enough fuel and such to resupply its escorts.<br />This is a problem because I realized that, even if I did just put them in anyway, the systems would be sitting in the fuel bunkerage.<br />Given the intentional blast deflection (part of which goes down), one of those going on actually would set the whole ship off.<br /><br />Basically, I ironically did not have the space. If I put the VLS in the citadel, that compromised the fuel bunkerage. If I put the VLS in the forequarter, the crew berthing was gone. If I put the VLS in the aft... well, at present that's the machine shop, the NIXIE house, the helo deck, and more berthings because around 800 crew is the bottom limit for a ship this size for Damage Control concerns.<br /><br />Of course, none of these problems would actually be problems if I had more length and beam to work with.<br />A 840' long, 83' beamed, 30' draft hull should be able to easily handle the weight of the added armor if the hull was reinforced and a few weight saving gimmicks were pulled, and I could fit in the 32 Mk57s just outside the citadel (probably focused around the guns - I am not concerned about setting the magazine off because of the 12" barbette), but that was outside the design limits.<br /><br />What do you think, Smitty?<br />On this design, is the shift in risked area worth the trade offs or would you just pursuit the long-hull design? <br />I mean, you've been looking at this for a lot longer than I have. I suspect that I'm over thinking things, really.<br /><br />- Ray D.Ray D.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-47430126525414852052016-01-17T12:45:14.471-08:002016-01-17T12:45:14.471-08:00Sounds like we are getting worse value yet than th...Sounds like we are getting worse value yet than the basic numbers put into this Thread suggest.<br /><br />Why are we putting the Ship Building Plans at such risk from 'mad-hatters' budgeting in general and the future of, say, Amphibious Assault Capabilities in particular, with <br />triple, quadruple cost for less capabilities ?<br /><br />Since apparently independent from whomever is in the White House, this is thus a bi-partisan challenge, concern, opportunity, nightmare.<br /><br />'Entitlements' will always have more voters to insist on than Ship-Building jobs. Without veering into 'politics' here, this unsustainable trend in ship-building far beyond any past excesses can only have a political solution. <br /><br />Ship-Builders may want to be pro-active on that before some crude set of tools is built by any colors-Congress, since the whole philosophical spectrum has in each sector hard-core budgeteers that may act harshly in the face of out-of-plausible-control program-costs matched by equally-hard-to-stomach under-performance of the product that are indefensible before any Townhall-Meeting under any political flag.<br /><br />Time to demonstrate disciplined reason by Shipbuilders offering an LSD-41/21 10/20-ship budget somewhere near the inflation-adjusted cost cited earlier, plus upgrades and radar-signature-reductions as proposed in that Dec.'15 PROCEEDINGS Letter.<br /><br />What are the odds of that ?<br />If no response from builders, then Congressional action after all ? <br /><br />Picture a coalition of isolationist Libertarians, Chamber-of-Congress budget-hawks, and Progressives moving together, all eager to 're-balance' the budget to match their constituencies !<br /><br />Conceivable alright... Trudy Schnabelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02049524622772323172noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-5245716052230013372016-01-17T12:18:04.920-08:002016-01-17T12:18:04.920-08:00Do some digging on the type of contracts issued ov...Do some digging on the type of contracts issued over the last several years, the types of items included, the degree of completeness at delivery, etc. and you'll see what a mess it is to try to compare costs. An excellent reference is "Electronic Greyhounds which covers the procurement of the Spruance class. You'll see just how much the Navy's contracting and accounting practices have changed. Ship acquisition used to be a fairly straightforward exercise. Not any more!<br /><br />Consider the Ford. A contract was issued for the construction of the ship - a contract which will, no doubt, be cited by some future commenter trying to make some point about costs "back then". What that commenter won't get from the contract amount is the billions in added costs that have occurred as supplemental (or whatever term the Navy uses) costs each year. Even now, the carrier can't be finished and the Navy is deferring construction until post-delivery and going to use post-delivery funding. That won't show up in the "contract" amount. The same has occurred in all ship classes over the last several years and decades. <br /><br />Check out the various reports about the degree of completeness of the LPD-17s - millions (literally) of man-hours of incomplete construction work was completed post-delivery. The LCSs were delivered significantly incomplete as well. How do you compare construction costs for incomplete ships?ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-28539887821155569072016-01-17T11:07:56.689-08:002016-01-17T11:07:56.689-08:00If current numbers are deemed unreliable, would th...If current numbers are deemed unreliable, would this state of affairs date back to the 1980s ?<br /><br />If so, then it is all a comparable mess.<br /><br />If not, then we have an empirically-correct baseline to orient ourselves by looking at new budgets and claimed 'value-per-Dollar'.<br /><br />Instructive either way.<br /><br />Inquiring HASC and SACC-members eager to demonstrate fiscal prowess may want to know...Trudy Schnabelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02049524622772323172noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-4319994043828799712016-01-17T10:57:59.202-08:002016-01-17T10:57:59.202-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.B.Smittyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12650152449414871058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-52658955256209884102016-01-17T10:48:07.368-08:002016-01-17T10:48:07.368-08:00The numbers on LSD-41 remain instructive in matter...The numbers on LSD-41 remain instructive in matters value-per Dollar, USN Ship-Building Plans, immediate impact upon USN and USMC Amphibious Capabilities, thus Doctrine, and of course juicy politics:<br />- LSD-41 = $339 million<br />- LSD-47 and LSD-48 = $149 million, or $270 mil today.<br /><br />A price-drop down to 42% of the lead-ship across just 6 hulls !<br /><br />Lots of feeding-at-the-trough nowadays via not enough competition ?<br /><br />Contrast that LSD-48 $270mill. today to $1.3+ Bill. for a short well-deck-only LPD-17-2. <br /><br />We sure are not getting 5x the MEU-capabilities despite an extra 8000-tons of bulk and getting stuck with that Shorty 190' well-deck versus 440' on LSD-41.<br /><br />These are implausible fiscal peculiarities.<br />No ship-building budget will ever be big enough under those conditions. Trudy Schnabelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02049524622772323172noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-77290374863000003262016-01-17T10:42:12.149-08:002016-01-17T10:42:12.149-08:00Smitty, you do recognize that the Navy has made it...Smitty, you do recognize that the Navy has made it all but impossible to intelligently discuss cost numbers with their accounting gimmicks, right? GFE obscures costs. Contracts issued for seaframes only obscure costs. Cost-plus contracts obscure costs. And the latest trend, postponement of a portion of construction until post-delivery fitting out just totally obscures cost accounting. Ford, for example, has had the "construction" cost capped and the Navy has opted to get around it by deferring construction until post-delivery.<br /><br />It has become patently impossible to compare year to year costs. I attempted to assemble serial production costs and gave up because the "contract" conditions changed every year. Less and less is paid for in the contract. Ships are now being delivered unfinished on a routine basis. How do you compare a contract for an unfinished ship to a contract for a finished (or more so) one in previous years? You can't. As I said, I gave up. There's nothing more to say on this. If you believe those numbers mean anything then you're welcome to your fantasy.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-77753244595933846572016-01-17T10:24:04.764-08:002016-01-17T10:24:04.764-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.B.Smittyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12650152449414871058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-17215784525288040932016-01-17T09:55:29.551-08:002016-01-17T09:55:29.551-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.B.Smittyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12650152449414871058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-9043629874385322712016-01-17T08:15:43.608-08:002016-01-17T08:15:43.608-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.B.Smittyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12650152449414871058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-14735474949635927042016-01-17T07:45:42.683-08:002016-01-17T07:45:42.683-08:00Cost of Construction of LSD-41 Class between 1981 ...Cost of Construction of LSD-41 Class between 1981 and 1992 (via Global Security.org)<br />- LSD-41 “Whidbey Island” ordered 09 February ‘81 <br /> commissioned 09 Feb ‘85 = $339 M<br />- LSD-42 “Germantown” ordered 26 March ‘82<br /> commissioned 01 Feb ‘86 = $304 M<br />- LSD-43 “Fort McHenry” ordered 27 January ‘83<br /> commissioned 24 July ‘87 = $272 M<br />- LSD-44 “Gunston Hall” ordered 21 Nov ‘84<br /> commissioned 24 Feb ‘89 = $167 M<br />- LSD-45 “Comstock” ordered 26 Nov ‘84<br /> commissioned 12 Jan ‘90 = $153 M<br />- LSD-46 “Tortuga” ordered 26 Nov ‘84<br /> commissioned 07 Sept ‘90 = $153 M<br />- LSD-47 “Rushmore” ordered 11 Dec ‘85<br /> commissioned 26 Apr ‘91 = $149 M<br />- LSD-48 “Ashland” ordered 11 Dec.’85<br /> commissioned 12 Mar ‘92 = $149 M<br /><br /><br />LSD-41-43 were built at Lockheed, Seattle. <br />LSD-44-48 were built at Avondale, New Orleans. <br /><br />Average Cost of LSD-41 class = $211 M per vessel versus lead-ship LSD-41 @ $339 M<br /><br />Only 8 ships built.<br /><br />And in two far-apart yards without direct hands-on Learning Curve to reduce the cost sooner and faster.<br /><br />At $149 per last two hulls, larger-buy economies would be tempting to extrapolate.<br /><br /><br /><br />Using InflationData.com’s CPI (Consumer Price Index) Inflation Calculator: <br /><br />- LSD-41’s $339 million Vessel-Cost in Feb’81 would equal about $900 M. today. <br /><br />- Class-Average $211 million per vessel in 1984 would equal about $500 M. today. <br /><br />- LSD-48’s $149 million in Vessel-Cost in March’92 would equal about $270 M. today.<br /><br />Would producing 10 such hulls mean $250 M each of these 12,500tons ships in today's Dollars ?<br /><br /><br />Known numbers ! <br />Extant Ships. <br />12,500 ton light, 15,800 f.l.<br />Proven type - just SLEP'd. to last 40+ years.<br />Trudy Schnabelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02049524622772323172noreply@blogger.com