After the last attempt at hidden retirements, Congress
forced the Navy to adopt the ‘2/4/6’ plan which called for 2 cruisers per year
to enter a ‘modernization’ program, 4 years to complete the modernization, and
a maximum of 6 cruisers in modernization at one time.
It’s important to understand that this program results in a
permanent reduction in the number of cruisers by 6 since the modernized
cruisers will re-enter the fleet only as one-for-one replacements for retiring
cruisers. Thus, the Navy got what they
wanted, at least partially.
So, what’s the current status of the ‘modernization’
program? Surprisingly, it’s very
difficult to get information.
Here’s the list of cruisers inducted into the modernization
program, thus far:
2015
USS Cowpens (CG-63)
USS Gettysburg (CG- 64)
2016
USS Vicksburg (CG- 69)
USS Chosin (CG- 65)
2017
USS Anzio (CG-68)
USS Cape St. George (CG- 71)
Now, in 2019, it’s been 4 years and the first two cruisers
should be coming out of modernization.
According to Navy Recognition website, the Gettysburg is being prepared
to re-enter the fleet in March 2020 under a $150M contract with BAE Systems in
Norfolk. Gettysburg will be replacing
the Bunker Hill (CG-52), scheduled to retire in 2020.
Starting
in January 2019, the Gettysburg will undergo extensive repair and upgrade work
that will return the ship to full capability after nearly four years of inactive
status under the Navy’s cruiser modernization program. (1)
The key point, here, is that the cruiser has NOT been
undergoing continuous modernization since entering the modernization program in
2105, as you might reasonably suppose.
Instead, it has been sitting
idle in inactive status. Most
people do not realize this aspect of the ‘modernization’ program. The program is really a way for the Navy to
idle cruisers for several years and then bring them back when another cruiser
is retired – thus, an effective permanent decrease in the cruiser fleet size.
 |
| USS Gettysburg Sitting Inactive While Undergoing "Modernization" |
One might also note that the 4 year limit is being violated
by some months.
It is also unclear exactly what is being modernized. The Navy claims the usual mishmash of vague
improvement lists such as,
…
installation of a new Aegis combat system, new communications suite and the
Consolidated Afloat Network Enterprise Systems (CANES); and renovate the crew’s
living spaces aboard the 27-year-old ship. (1)
It’s unclear, though, just how much improvement in combat
capability will occur. For example, the
‘new Aegis combat system’ is, as best I can determine, just a software upgrade
and could have been done, pierside, at any time without a 4 year
‘modernization’ program. Crew living
space improvements have nothing to do with combat capability. CANES appears to be a consolidation of
existing networks – nice, but not a direct combat enhancement.
It’s also interesting to note the cost of the
modernization. At $150M, this is not a
very extensive modernization by today’s cost standards.
Given the limited scope of the modernization and the
moderate cost, one can’t help but ask, ‘why did it require 4 years?’. Well, as you now see, it didn’t. The first three years were spent in inactive,
idle status. The actual work only
requires a year and that’s probably stretching things out a bit. The real purpose of the program was to idle
as many cruisers as Congress would allow for as long as Congress would
allow. We’re trying to grow the fleet to
355 ships or so and yet we’re idling the most capable cruisers in the
world. Hmm …
Here’s the retirement schedule (3):
2020
USS Mobile Bay (CG-53)
USS Bunker Hill (CG- 52)
2021
USS Antietam (CG- 54)
USS Leyte Gulf (CG- 55)
2022
USS San Jacinto (CG-56)
USS Lake Champlain (CG- 57)
2024
USS Philippine Sea (CG-58)
USS Princeton (CG-59)
2025
USS Normandy (CG-60)
USS Monterey (CG-61)
2026
USS Chancellorsville (CG-62)
Just recently, the Navy has, apparently, indicated its
intention to cancel the cruiser modernization program:
The
FY 2020 budget request also notes the Navy’s intention to cancel a planned
cruiser modernization and life-extension program – which the service has asked
to do previously and Congress would not agree to. (2)
What the Navy intends to do at that point is unknown. We’ll have to wait and see Congress’ reaction
to the Navy’s new plan but it’s unlikely to be positive.
In summary, the ‘modernization’ program was clearly a fraud
intended to idle cruisers and, in that regard, the Navy has partially succeeded
in bypassing Congress’ intent. Where the
program goes from here remains to be seen.
Update Jan-2020: BAE Systems has been awarded a $175M contract to modernize USS Vicksburg's gas turbine propulsion system, restore crew habitability spaces, and support the installation of a new Aegis combat system, communication suite and CANES (Consolidated Afloat Network Enterprise System). Work is expected to be completed in July 2021. Again, this violates the 2-4-6 Congressional mandate by several months to a year. Vicksburg has been sitting idle since 2016 rather than undergoing modernization as the Navy claimed. This was, clearly, a means for the Navy to idle cruisers rather than actually modernize them. The described modernization contains very little in the way of direct combat capability improvements.
Update Jan-2020: BAE Systems has been awarded a $175M contract to modernize USS Vicksburg's gas turbine propulsion system, restore crew habitability spaces, and support the installation of a new Aegis combat system, communication suite and CANES (Consolidated Afloat Network Enterprise System). Work is expected to be completed in July 2021. Again, this violates the 2-4-6 Congressional mandate by several months to a year. Vicksburg has been sitting idle since 2016 rather than undergoing modernization as the Navy claimed. This was, clearly, a means for the Navy to idle cruisers rather than actually modernize them. The described modernization contains very little in the way of direct combat capability improvements.
(1)Navy Recognition website, “BAE Systems to Modernize U.S.
Navy Tico-class Cruiser USS Gettysburg“, 27-Aug-2018,
http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php/news/defence-news/2018/august-2018-navy-naval-defense-news/6458-bae-systems-to-modernize-u-s-navy-tico-class-cruiser-uss-gettysburg.html
(2)USNI News website, “Large Surface Combatant Program
Delayed Amid Pivot Towards Unmanned, Other Emerging Tech”, Megan Eckstein,
13-Mar-2019,
https://news.usni.org/2019/03/13/large-surface-combatant-program-delayed-amid-pivot-towards-unmanned-other-emerging-tech
(3)Defense News website, “The US Navy will start losing its
largest surface combatants in 2020”, David B. Larter, 8-Oct-2017,
https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2017/10/09/the-us-navy-will-start-losing-its-largest-surface-combatants-in-2020/
Interesting the way the can away with things my guess is we are going to get a Urgent Plea for a shiny new Large Surface Combatant ie. Cruiser to to a massive cruiser shortfall in numbers
ReplyDeleteHow much of the 150 mil$ and year refurb, is because the ship has been sitting rotting for 3 years ?
ReplyDeleteThat's a really great question for which I have no answer.
DeleteMarch 2019 Report to Congress on the Annual Long-Range Plan for
ReplyDeleteConstruction of Naval Vessels for Fiscal Year 2020 by Deputy Chief of Naval Operations (Warfare System Requirements - OPNAV N9)
"The funding for SLEs of the six oldest cruisers, added in PB2019, was removed in PB2020 in favor of readiness and other lethality investments. The first two of these retirements were scheduled for FY2020, but deferred one year to support reevaluation during PB2021.
Modernization of the newer cruisers under the Congressionally mandated 2-4-6 plan is still in progress."
Not stated by the Navy is how many Ticos it classes as 'newer'.
It shows 15 large surface combatants retired from 2021 to 2029, will it be all Ticos or may include some Burkes Flight Is?
Could they perhaps become Naval Reserve Vessels? Pay the piddling costs of modernization then put then to sea only part time. This would save operational cost, reduce wear and tear, and yet still be available as a surge force of cruisers.
ReplyDeleteI assume you're asking whether the retired Aegis cruisers could become reserve assets? Theoretically, yes. However, the Navy has all but eliminated reserve ships due to the cost of maintenance. If we won't keep carriers in reserve, it's unlikely we'll keep lesser valued ships.
DeleteThe Navy is intentionally undermanning ships to save every dollar they can so, again, it's impossible to imagine that they'll pay manpower to maintain reserve ships. Stupid, I know, but it's the sad reality of the Navy's short-sighted thinking.
It seems that the BAE contract is for 15 months after the 4 years inactive period , although there appears to have been a different contract at the start of the inactive period. As spelled out in this PR release
ReplyDeletehttps://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20180823005598/en/U.S.-Navy-Awards-BAE-Systems-146.3-Million
As for the Combat systems, it may be they are supplied under different contracts - for a lot more money- as Lockheed systems the Aegis combat system.
eg "When the Navy put Baseline 9 on the cruiser Normandy a few years ago, which included all new consoles, displays and computer servers in addition to the software, it ran the service $188 million."
https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2018/06/21/upgrading-us-navy-ships-is-difficult-and-expensive-change-is-coming/
I think you may be misinterpreting the article (it's the same information that I linked in the post, by the way). The contract starts in Jan 2019 so that means it will be complete in Mar 2020 which is when the Mobile Bay is scheduled to be retired - a one-for-one replacement.
DeleteDepending on exactly when the Gettysburg entered the inactivation process in 2015, the four year period will be up, presumably, sometime in late 2019. Thus, the 15 month contract pushes the modernization a few months past the 4 year deadline but not that much.
The article clearly states that the ship has been inactive for nearly 4 years so very little, if any, modernization has been performed yet. This contract is clearly the modernization. There was some initial work done at the start of the inactivation which was related TO THE INACTIVATION. It prepared the ship to sit idle and probably consisted of removing some equipment and idling others for the long term.
I think the entire modernization is contained within this single contract. I have seen nothing to indicate otherwise. Are you aware of any other contract directly related to this modernization?
I really believe there needs to be a replacement to the ticos on a much bigger hull. The primary role of these ships is the defense of the aircraft carrier battle group. The primary threats that need to be addressed are ballistic/ hypersonic missiles and submarines. They therefore need to have the capability/size and speed that best fulfills those rolls at an exceptional level of reliability.
ReplyDeleteI have ideas about how I would do this from a concept of operations point of view. If in the future you blog about a major surface combatant, i will share my opinion on how to best design a combatant to carry out this task.
I think the ticos should be replaced urgently but I think the dockyards and the industrial capacity to support the construction and replacement has been sacrificed at the 'altar' of globalisation. I think that is the issue that has to be addressed at an executive congressional level before any real improvement to the fleet can take place.
I've discussed many times that a pure AAW ship could be much smaller than the current Tico. Simply eliminating the hangar and flight deck would shrink the required size significantly. Remove ASW components provides more reduction.
DeleteRemember, these types of reductions also result in smaller crews which means smaller berthing areas, smaller mess facilities, smaller food storage, fewer heads, less fresh water generation and storage, and so on, all of which further reduce ship size.
So, with all that said, how do you see your new cruiser concept as needing to be bigger?
Whenever you defend against a threat there are two fundamental problems that need solving. Detection and Engagement. In order to detect high flying high speed threats requires extremely large radars. We already know that the current burkes and ticos are not big enough and do not have enough power production to operate the best currently available AESA Radars. In addition, in order to do this well requires a degree of combat redundancy. Ideally this means having at least six radar faces spread over two towers so that a by strike by a single stealthy asm does not lead to a mission kill. It also means placing the radar as high as possible on the supestructure so as to detect high speed sea skimming threats. It also requires a high enough speed to keep up with a carrier moving at 35 knots. As we know that the length of a discplacement hull is inversely proportional to wave drag which determines top the top speed.
DeleteIn summary in order to do this reliably it has to be a bigger hull with a high speed and a powerplant that can meet the energy needs of the radar. I think the combatant has to be about 20000 tonnes, a length over 200m and be able to be able to keep up with a carrier for long periods as speed offers protection against submarine threats.
I dont think you can meet those requirements on a smaller or existing hull.
That's going to be a big, largely empty hull! Without agreeing or disagreeing, here's a few thoughts.
Delete" not have enough power production to operate the best currently available AESA Radars"
This is not a hull size issue but a machinery issue. A very small hull with appropriate turbines or diesels or whatever can supply the requisite power.
"redundancy … six radar faces"
I like that you're aware of redundancy although six faces violates one of the rules of redundancy (the redundant item should be as different from the primary as possible to minimize the chance of a single failure taking out both primary and redundant; redundancy is worth a post of its own! I may have to do that). That aside, six faces do not, of themselves, require a large hull. With a redesigned superstructure, six faces could fit on a smaller hull than a Burke.
"sea skimming"
Height of radar faces does not require a large hull other than as it affects stability which requires a wider hull rather than longer. Also, the entire radar system does not necessarily have to be raised to deal with sea skimmers - the Navy's current approach of using a dedicated, rotating, small SPQ-9B takes care of the sea skimmer issue. How well it does that is unknown, of course.
"length of a discplacement hull is inversely proportional to wave drag which determines top the top speed."
I'm out of my element here but my understanding is that hull length is not the determiner of speed but, rather, length to width ratio with narrower hulls (larger ratios) being potentially faster for a given power. A Fletcher class destroyer, for example, was only 376 ft long (L:W = 9.6) but had a top speed of over 36 kts.
I'm not seeing anything that absolutely requires a larger hull.
Yes you are out of your depth on this. The laws of wave drag physics cannot be debated away in a blog. Wave drag does determine hull speed in discplacement vessels. The peak hull speed of the san antonio class vessels is calculated by the equation 1.34 x sqr of the length in feet. The peak efficient hull speed of this class is 35 knots. That is one of the reasons they are suggesting this ship as a tico replacement. You can go over this speed by using a lot more power or by having some planing characterics of the hull. The fletchers you will find had a lot more power per tonne of weight but the trade off is the unrefueled range at this speed was quite limited.
DeleteTo power just the radar will require two extra gas turbines or about 80000 shp. Have you got an idea for a smaller ship with 80000 extra shp that has good range and speed?
The current Ohio class reactor produces enough power for both the radar 100mw with 20% efficiency of the radar and enough power to drive the ship at speed. 20 % is the electrical efficiency of radar.
Increasing the beam of a ship to increase stability increases the power required to drive it at 35 knots but inevitably this again increases the size of the ship. Have you got a way of increasing beam without increasing discplacement or not requiring even more power.
The reason the navy is suggesting a san antonio size ship as replacement is completely logical and based on sound physical reasons. What you are advocating for ballistic missile defense is not based on logical argument or reason. These are two qualities that you think are important in your blog. The choice is to either do bmd properly and work out from basic principles of physics as the navy has done or end up with an lcs type of ship that is not fit for purpose which is what you are suggesting.
"you are out of your depth on this"
DeleteHmmm … Let's see.
The simplistic peak hull speed calc you refer to seems to apply mainly to small craft, in particular, sailboats. Many descriptions of the calc note that the peak speed is easily exceeded and that the calc is not routinely used in larger ship design. The lack of relevance is supported by the large number of actual ships that exceed the calc speed, such as the Fletcher.
It appears that the peak hull speed calc is, at best a minor consideration whose effect is swamped by other factors such as hull form, length to width ratio, power, etc.
Thus, the formula you cite does, indeed, exist but it appears to be all but irrelevant in warship design.
"Wave drag does determine hull speed in discplacement vessels."
No, hull speed is determined by applied motive power with various factors such as length:width, planing characteristics, hull form, etc. acting as modifiers for a given power level.
"just the radar will require two extra gas turbines or about 80000 shp."
Where did you get that figure? It doesn't sound right given that the Burke, with their 75MW total power (if I have that right), can handle the motive power and the AMDR (SPY-6) albeit not the maximum size AMDR. The Flt III may or may not have an added generator for the radar - I can't recall off the top of my head. This suggests that 80000 shp is way overstated.
Also, a single LM2500 gas turbine is rated at around 19MW and 26,000 bhp so two extra turbines, as you suggest, would provide 38MW/52,000 bhp rather than 80000 shp.
Let me know where you got the 80000 shp requirement and we'll proceed from there.
If you decide to comment further, please do so respectfully and impersonally. Argue the idea, not the person. I also encourage you to discuss rather than argue.
"To power just the radar will require two extra gas turbines or about 80000 shp."
DeleteThe current Burkes reportedly have three 2,500kW 501-K34 gas turbine generators that provide non-shaft electrical power. (see, "Burke"
Given that the Burkes are described as being just a bit short of having the needed power for AMDR, that would suggest that just a little bit more power would suffice to run the AMDR as opposed to dedicated gas turbines with prodigious hp outputs.
Its about radar power. 18 mw is the power output of a modern aesa radar that will do the job well in 360 degrees. Youl could of corse have a single or two faces but would have to have the ship pointed in the correct direction. The current ticos put out 6 mw. The quoted electrical efficiency of radar is 20%. 5x18 is 90mw of power. This is the power you have to produce to run a high quality 360 degree abmd radar. The navy has stated that the radars need to be 6.1 metres across or about 28 square metres on each face to do abmd reliably. The current tico radar can detect a ballistic missile at a range of about 350 km. As you have reported the current burkes have 7.5mw of electrical generation. This suggests they are producing enough power to power only one face. The detection range is not much different from the ticos and that they have cut corners. There has been an improvement in range due to gallium nitride technology. With the correct sized radar the detection range will be in the order of 600km as in the elta green pine radar. The navy is on record already to say the burkes do not have enough power. The navy has also stated that to perform abmd properly the ship has to be the size of the lpd 17.
DeleteIn terms of warship speed and design the fletchers would go at 15 knots on one boiler, 28 knots on two boilers and 36 knots on four boilers. The hull speed is 26 knots. The rule applies to any discplacement hull. Doubling the power output of the fletchers above the hull speed only leads to a 25% increase in speed. This what the hull speed determines. It determines the speed in which extra power leads to only marginal increases in velocity in displacement hulls. It does not apply to planing hulls. Are the Burkes planing hull?
You pride yourself on logic in your blog but have not provided any assessment about radar power which determines range and how much generation is required and in turn the size of the hull and power required. It looks to me that the current burkes will only be able to provide one direction detection based on the known radar physics.
I freely admit I am not an expert on radar power requirements but I find your power claims incongruent with what few examples I can find. As you note, the Burke Flt III will be getting the AMDR (SPY-6), admittedly a smaller version than desired, but the 7.5 MW non-motive power supply is adequate (unless they've added generators?) for the smaller radar. Even if the full size, desired radar were used it wouldn't suddenly jump all the way to needing 80000 bhp! So, that's one data point that doesn't seem to support your claim.
DeleteThe Sea Based Radar, SBX-1, is an AESA of 384 sq.m. and operates on what amounts to a barge. Power is supplied by six 3.6-megawatt generators (12-cylinder Caterpillar diesels) for a total of 21.6 MW. This, too, does not seem to support your claim.
You have not offered a source for your claim. Until you do, the couple of examples suggest the claim is exaggerated.
I'm completely open to believing your claim if you can provide a source.
As far as ship speed, all you've demonstrated is that higher speeds require higher power and there is a diminishing returns curve which is common knowledge. Numerous examples prove that exceeding the hull speed calc value is quite commonplace - almost the rule!
DeleteThe Burkes do have a ducktail on the stern which is claimed to improve efficiency and provide a small degree of semi-planning, as I understand it.
The current DDG-51 destroyers get all the power supply from ( non shaft ) Rolls Royce gas turbine generator sets, the AG9140 is derived from the T56 that powered older Hercules transports. The later FLt III use AG9160, which are 4MW each. ( which nearly 5400HP, usable output would be less)
DeleteThe RN tried an integrated gas turbine driven shaft- generator arrangement but that didnt turn out so well for them.
Unknown has confused the separate shaft drive and power generation gas turbines
"To power just the radar will require two extra gas turbines or about 80000 shp. "
The LM2500 gas turbine is based on the CF6 engine from large airliners
(lastest LM2500 version was 47,370 shp 35,320 kW)
The generator set was based on the T56 gas turbine which is used as a turboprop engine of the Hercules.
This issue with Burke's is that the current power train demands aren't unified. 3 Allison 501K's for ships service and 4 LM2500 for propulsion. This is one area where the diesel-electric drive train of the Zumwalt's would be a positive trickle down to the DDG hull form.
DeleteThe issue is that this redesign would be on the scale of the FLT IIA, thus costing a pretty penny. I happen to think it would be it would be worth it as Big Navy is loathe to do new clean sheet hull designs IMO.
The radar faces need to be between 24 and 30 square metres each and consume a total of 18 mega watts of power. The current ticos are 16 square metres each with a total of 6 megawatts.
ReplyDeletePower for the radar transmit/receive modules doesnt work like that. The T/R modules use power amplifiers to get the numbers you refer to , but its only micro seconds so can be electronically boosted.
DeleteThe fletcher class efficient hull speed was 25 knots. 45 megawatts of power would propel them at 36 knots. They can travel 5000 miles at 15 knots. They were 2200 tonnes or about 40 tonnes per per megawat. If the san antonio class had the equivalent power of the fletcher they would have 600 to 700 mw of installed power and be able to go over 50 knots!
ReplyDeleteUSN keeps saying it needs more ships BUT it's retiring as fast as possible the Ticos, LCS is worthless and I'm afraid new FFX won't be a whole lot better, there's a bunch of old Los Angeles class SSN retired prematurely, USN didn't want to refuel carrier Washington and now Truman is going thru the same budget gimmick, only 3 Zumwalts were built and for all intent and purposes they are prototypes and I'm sure will become glorious pier queens, read somewhere that USS WASP only had 3 deployments in like 10 years, how many Burkes are REALLY COMBAT READY when they can't avoid tankers,....BUT HEY, I KNOW, LET'S TRUST THE USN AND BUY MORE SHIPS!!!
ReplyDeleteEven if USN were to get it right and start NOW, no way new CGX or whatever name the replacement for Ticos will be around before 2030. No way! So what is USN going to do? Buy even more Burkes?!? I like the Burke BUT COME ON, isn't it time to come up with a new hull? or maybe USN CAN'T GET IT'S ACT TOGETHER ANYMORE TO ORDER AND BUILD ONE? I think the question merits asking.... I mean, seriously, can the USN get a new hull in the water that isn't a disaster or maybe USN has reached such a level of INCOMPETENCE it can't get the ship it needs?
Looking at these once proud ships and aircraft of US military today, it really saddens me to see the state of our gear. I keep hearing we are so uptempo and we don't have the money (DoD over $700 billion dollars BUT who's counting?), as a military book collector and having grown up during Cold War, I have noticed one thing and I think a mistake was made some where, we should have done more to keep the fancy unit markings and all kinds of camouflages. There's just no more pride and esprit de corps in our military. I look at 80s color pictures and even noticeable in the old black in white pictures, our gear looks awesome, even when it was old! ANG and Reserve jets looked pristine, even the old Vietnam era F105s and F4 that had seen combat look 10 times better than any F16 or F16 today. Let's not even talk about USN ships! Foreign aircraft and ships look better than US, why is that our gear looks so bad and tired??? Im not buying the "NOT ENOUGH" money argument, USN and USAF don't have enough money to buy paint?!? Why does everything look so dirty? We can't buy water and soap?!?
I'm done with my rant, have to go to work.....
iphysics.if they took the lpd 17 hull and put more power into it abnd filled it full of launch cells they would have asip that could do this properly and relatively short time. To much consultation and not enough leadership.
DeleteWhy does the Tico/Burke replacement LSC need a big hull to stabilize a larger full fat SPY-6+ with four ~20' array panel with the long range SM-3 IIA exo-atmospheric missiles, its for a wide area BMD coverage to protect land targets, if LSC mission role is to protect carriers why not use the current SPY-6 with its current ~14' panels used on Flight III, they were the max size panels a Burke could stabilize due the top weight of the heavy SPY-6 GaN T/R Ms.
ReplyDeleteThe powerful SPY-6 with all its radiation makes it a prime target for anti-radar missiles eg Russia’s new Kh-58UShKE with one broadband homing warhead to engage targets across the entire range of their frequencies, 76 km when fired from a minimum altitude of 200 meters and from 200 km to 245 km when launched from an altitude of 20 km.
The Navy’s director of surface warfare, Rr Adm. Boxall said at SNA 2018 the LSC hull to incorporates the surface force’s emphasis on off-board sensors that radiate and target with active sensors, while using passive sensors on the ship to avoid detection, though have seen no R&D for a bi-static radar to replace SPY-6.
Power required for SPY-6 for Flight III will use thee uprated 4 MW GTG from 3 MW in Flight IIA, one is a spare, with the two 4 MW generators running in parallel Flight III will make 7.5/7.6 megawatts of useable power. Flight IIA takes about 4 MW to power everything aboard, Flight III with SPY-6 takes approx another 1.5 MW, so 5.5 MW of load, that leaves 2 MW margin for growth.
Mention made that Navy will replace the SPY-1 used Burke IIA, Tico?, with a cut down version of the SPY-6, using the same GaN T/RM 2' square RMA as used in the SPY-6/EASR.
Its said at moment there is no known defense against hypersonic missiles, only to attack launch platforms.
Can I ask a stupid question please. Tico's are used with a carrier to give it air cover. Assuming you only need one per carrier group, and they require less time in port for maintenance than a carrier, why don't you only need the smne number as carriers.
ReplyDeleteAlso second mad thought,let us assume it has to be big for power / radar height. The Tico replacement will always be next to a carrier with associated asw cover etc, the additional space could be used for additional carrier stores. This would not require as much crew as helicopters etc which are not required for its primary (and arguably only) role.
Ideally, there should be multiple AAW cruisers with each carrier - one ain't gonna cut it. Think about carrier group AAW defense. Where do you put the cruiser if you only have one? You'd like to place it on the threat axis, as far out from the carrier as possible to allow maximum defense time. But, where is the threat axis? Planes (and missiles) can quickly circle a group and approach from any direction. Where to put the cruiser? Guess wrong and you weaken the defense of the carrier. The solution is to have multiple AAW cruisers so that 360 degrees around the carrier are covered. Three cruisers would kind of suffice - four would be better. If we operate multi-carrier groups (4 carriers), as we should in combat, we'll need even more cruisers to cover the vast area that 4 carriers need to operate. The Burkes also help fill the AAW requirement though they lack the AAW command and control functions.
DeleteYou might want to check out the number of escorts that WWII carrier groups had. You'll be shocked. We've come to believe that one cruiser and a couple Burkes constitute an escort for a carrier. In peacetime, that's fine. In combat, that's a recipe for sunk carriers. A carrier group will likely need 20-30 escorts to have a reasonable chance of survival.
In addition, there will be other groups (amphibious groups, vital convoys, surface combat groups, etc.) that require an AAW cruiser. We ought to have 30-40.
Quite right that given its single function there is no need for asw gear, helos, hangars, and flight decks on an AAW cruiser. There is no reason that a replacement AAW cruiser couldn't be smaller than a current Tico. Essentially, all it needs is radar and VLS. Anything else just detracts and distracts from its primary role.
So what does this "inactive" actually mean? Was the crew transferred to other ships? The photo shows no human activity. Did they just put the ships keys in the lockbox and go home? Was the crew doing maintenance "catch-up" or (?) This just seems odd for a ship to be sitting with nothing happening, although the Navy is certainly demonstrating its penchant for "odd" lately (thats putting it politely)...
ReplyDeleteMy understanding is that the crews were disbursed among other ships. A skeleton caretaker maintenance crew watched the ships but did nothing in terms of overhauls or upgrades.
DeleteYou have to understand, the Navy wanted to eliminate the crew costs. When they couldn't retire the ships, they found the next best solution which was to idle them disburse the crews. Each disbursed crewman was one less that the Navy had to hire and pay for in new ships.
The Navy also wanted to eliminate the yearly operating costs and, again, achieved that by idling the ships.
I don't know but I strongly suspect that very little was done to preserve the ships and I suspect that their material condition (corrosion control, seals, packing, etc.) coming out of this 'upgrade' will be substantially worse than when they went in.
Ugh...the worst thing you can with machinery (especially if not properly prepped) is to let it sit. I suspect youre right, and the reintroduction to the fleet will be fraught with new maintenance/repair issues...
Delete"fraught with new maintenance/repair issues..."
DeleteWhich would suit the Navy just fine. They'd be able to go to Congress and say, "Look at how bad a condition these ships are in. We definitely need to retire them now."
Ref earlier posts by CNO & Unknown on speed /power needed for ships, a few figures, rule of thumb for every 4 knot increase in speed you need to double the power for the ship, speed is expensive, Navy have changed spec of FFG(X) to 26 knots threshold/28 knots objective from 28 knots at 80% MCR.
ReplyDeleteLe Terrible still holds the world speed record for a destroyer at 45.1 knots set in 1935, assuming in light load and boiler valves screwed down tight for max pressure, a French 1930's Le Fantasque destroyer class, LOA 132.4 m; beam 11.98m; approx 3,500t FLD / 60 MW/80,500hp.
Length to width ratio:-
La Fantasque 1930s l/w 11.0
Tico (1960/70's Spruance hull) l/w 10.3
Burke 1980's l/w 7.7
Type 26 2000/10's l/w 7.2
~Power/hp per tonne:-
La Fantasque (80,500/3,500) = 23.0 speed 45.1 knots
Tico (86,000/9,800) = 8.8 speed 32.5 knots
Burke (106,000/9,800) = 10.8 speed 30+ knots
Type 26 (48,250/8,000) = 6.0 speed 26+ knots
If above figures accurate the Burkes needs 23% more power than Tico to reach approx the same speed, effect of the lower length to width ratio 7.7 v 10.3.
The figures are indicative only eg as LM2500 GT has increased output over time as the newer variants used in Burkes, GE’s latest LM2500+G4 has been approved by USN at 30.3MW/40,600hp, as to why not procured for Burke, more costly, higher fuel consumption and perhaps need larger intakes/exhausts than current version and only marginal increase in speed, (162,400 vers 106,000, 56,400hp increase, additional speed would be ~ 2 knots). RR quoting 40MW/54,000hp for MT30 in new Japanese 30FFX whereas previously quoted 36MW/48,250hp for Type 26, if the higher spec'd version installed it would make possible a small speed increase of approx half a knot.
Temperature can make difference to GT power output, the lower the temperature, higher density/higher output, GE mention 33MW/44,000hp to 37MW/50,000hp spread with LM2500+G4.