Armor was another knee jerk reaction. So many people think that if we add armor the
ship will either sink outright under the weight or, at best, be reduced to a 5
knot barge, nearly unable to move. Those
people are ignoring the fact that every WARship built in WWII had heavy armor,
appropriate for their size, and yet managed to not only float but sail around
at 30+ knots and carry a weapons fit that puts our modern designs to shame and
all on hulls that were much smaller than today’s ships. Armor can be done. We routinely did it. We’ve just forgotten that it can be done
because our paradigm, today, is unarmored ships. It’s that paradigm that made so many people
instantly claim the destroyer couldn’t be armored.
Crew comfort was also a popular knee jerk reaction. Many people seem to feel that if today’s crew
doesn’t have luxurious five star accommodations they’ll either die or flee the
ship. The fact that tens of thousands of
sailors fought for four years in WWII under spartan conditions seems lost and
forgotten. We not only managed to
operate ships with minimal crew comforts but we actually won an entire war
while doing so! It’s only today’s
paradigm of cruise ships masquerading as WARships that have conditioned people
to think luxury comforts are necessary.
It’s that paradigm that made so many people instantly claim the proposed
destroyer couldn’t be crewed with only minimal comforts.
Paradigms … they really restrict our thinking, don’t they?
Let’s try a paradigm-breaking exercise. Let’s imagine taking a WWII Fletcher and
simply replacing its weapons with modern equivalents. Specifically,
- Leave 5” gun mounts number 1 and 5
- Replace 5” gun mounts number 3 and 4 each with a 8-cell VLS
- Replace 5” gun mount number 2 with a CIWS
- Replace the aft 40 mm with a CIWS
- Replace the 4x port/starboard midships 20 mm guns with a SeaRAM port/starboard
- Replace the torpedo tubes between the stacks with 2x 8-cell VLS
- Leave the aft set of torpedo tubes
- Replace the port/starboard deck edge depth charge launchers with an RBU port/starboard
- Replace the bridge top fire control/range finder with a TRS-3D radar
- Replace the stern depth charge racks with a towed array sonar
 |
| Fletcher Class Destroyer - Visualize the Modern Replacements |
Hey, that’s everything I specified for the modern destroyer
except for the hangar and flight deck!
And all on a 376 ft hull ! With
an additional 50-60 ft to play with, as specified for the modern destroyer
design, and a little rearranging (weapons on top of the hangar, for example, as
on the Perry and Burke) we can easily accommodate the hangar and flight deck.
And, we still had the 2x forward 20 mm gun spaces that we
can use for still more weapons/sensors! Hmm
… I may have oversized the spec on the modern destroyer length!
Further, a modern destroyer would have a wider beam than the
39 ft wide Fletcher – probably something around the 45 ft beam of the Perry
class (Burkes have a 66 ft beam). That gives
even more space for weapons. We could
probably fit the 32 VLS cells in the space of the forward torpedo tubes and
retain the 5” gun mounts number 3 and 4 – everything I specified plus two
additional 5” guns for a total of 4 !!!!!
You see what can be achieved if you’re not constrained by
paradigms? Anytime you have an
instantaneous reaction (especially a negative one), stop and ask yourself
why? It might be for a good reason but
often it’s because you’re subject to a paradigm that you didn’t even realize
you had.
Agree on everything but crews "comfort".
ReplyDeleteA WWII crew could undoubtedly deal with spartan accommodations, but nowadays standards have been incredibly "relaxed" (=lowered).
Oh, and there's the whole "women in combat" issue, too.
"nowadays standards have been incredibly "relaxed"
DeleteThat they've been relaxed doesn't make them right. They were relaxed because we insist on 6-12 month cruise ship deployments. They've also been relaxed because we've taken the challenges out of naval life and taken the fun out of liberty. We need to tighten up discipline, provide substantive challenges, and loosen up the political correctness that has destroyed traditional liberty port calls.
"women in combat" issue"
It's not an issue, it's a misguided mistake.
What is your propulsion plant?
Delete"What is your propulsion plant?"
DeleteIf you're addressing that to me and the previous proposed modern destroyer, I'd leave the propulsion selection to the engineers but I'd keep it as simple and basic as possible - no complex, hybrid, CODAMNCRAP engines with unworkable interconnecting gear systems that break down every twelve miles. I'd assume two LM2500 (33,600 shp each) or something similar. Again, that's an engineering issue for the experts.
If you're asking about power for the Fletcher in this post, it's irrelevant since the only point was to demonstrate weapon density. I wouldn't actually build exact Fletcher replicas with new weapons! However, even in this case, I'd assume the Fletcher's 4x boilers and 2x steam turbines would be replaced by 2x LM2500 turbines. Again, though, no one's proposing to build replica Fletchers!
You would have to make the two fire rooms and enginerooms into two bigger machinery space. Should have romm in each space for one LM2500 gen pack, one fresh water evap, two 300 ton chillers, plus a LP and HP air compressor. Go with AZI PODS. Podded propulsion is matured and reliable now. A lot of commercial shipyards are sett up to handle pod swaps when needed. Theres a good u tube video showing a swap out on a Carnival cruise ship. Took a little over one hour to do the swap. Ship was in and out of drydock in a day. conventional shafting would be a week or more.
Delete"AZI PODS"
DeleteCan pods provide enough thrust to achieve 30+ knots on a destroyer? I have no idea. What can you tell me?
As far as crew comfort, what are the accommodations like on a Burke for instance?? I served in the days of "3 rack stacks"... Is it the same or are they plusher nowadays??
DeleteAs far a women in combat... I dont like the cost and space used for separate berthings. I served with women aboard, and in those early days, it was frankly a pain. The women could be mostly put in two categories: those that slept their way to the top, or those that screamed "sexual harrassment" as soon as they were pushed to pull their weight. The ones that just assimilated and did their jobs were the exception. Id like to think that 25 years later thats changed though, and I accept it with minimal reservation...
The two largest cruise ships in the world Oasis of the Sea and Allure of the Sea are powered by three 20MW pods. Tops speed of 25 KTS. The new ship being built will have two 20.5 MW pods at 25 kts. These ships aren't built for speed, but two decent size pods on a mid size warship should get you to 32+ knots. As fuel cell technology evolves you may be able to go with a pretty silent propulsion system, as well as almost unlimited range.
DeleteMy concern with propulsion is that with the VLS placement as stated it pretty much laves room for 1 engine room vs 2. No ship that small has just gas turbine propulsion. If you just use diesels your largest medium speed diesels side by side won't be enoguh power. But again when we grow the ship 100+ feet for hangar and flight deck the other engine room could go under there.
DeleteTo follow up, 20.5 MW comes out to 27490.95 HP.
DeleteA Fletcher had 60,000 shp. I have no idea how a pod's hp compares to a conventional shp. Are 2x pods with 27,490 hp (55 hp total, I presume?) adequate?
DeleteIf the ship is being used for ASW how fast do you want to go anyway? Any significant speed will make you deaf and noisy no matter what wonderful equipment you have.
Delete"ASW how fast do you want to go anyway?"
DeleteAs you recall, in our discussion of a modern destroyer, the functions were anti-surface and ASW. Both benefit greatly, at the appropriate times, from speed.
In the case of ASW, speed allows the ship to possibly run a torpedo into fuel exhaustion, reposition quickly, reach a reported sub location quickly before it can evade, reach an advantageous helo launch point quickly, reach an ASROC launch position quickly, or simply bypass a sub and force the sub to move quickly and noisily to achieve an intercept position or miss the chance to intercept. Speed is also quite useful in repositioning around a convoy while escorting. The convoy doesn't stop so if you need to reposition you need speed to do it in a useful time frame. These are not actions that would be done all the time but when the appropriate moment comes, there's no substitute for speed.
The only time speed is a bad thing is when it overwhelms the ship design and makes the cost skyrocket, as happened with the LCS.
SHP is the total power after going through all the gearing, each engine drive delivers 30,000 for twin screws you get your 60,000. Electric motors derive they're horsepower rating from the motor torque X rotation speed. Electric motor/ pod drive are direct drive, so lower HP ratings dont mean you have less power. You have to take into account the screw itself, how many blade, pitch, is it shrouded. WW2 screw were less efficent as far as cavitaion and bite. Pods offer you unheard of maneuvering as well. You can turn 360 in the length of the ship. Electric drive has been around for a long time, Colorada class BBs, Lexington and Saratoga CVs, Buckley class DEs.
DeleteMost modern thrusters are designed for off shore work where thrust is more important than speed, consequently the thrusters are designed for about 16 knots. The thrusters on cruise ships are designed for about 21 knots, so nothing really available in the 30 knot range.
DeleteThe other thing to remember is that they are heavy and require a wide stern to support the weight, which is less efficient when trying to reach higher speeds. For a destroyer my preference would be a shafted design, gas turbines for high speed and a couple of electric motors for quiet operations up to about 18 knots. All very easy using the modern commercial marine propulsion systems.
BTW I like the Fletcher baseline. maybe check out a FRAM conversion. It's even closer to your proposal with the added flight deck.
"maybe check out a FRAM conversion. It's even closer to your proposal with the added flight deck."
DeleteGood reminder!
Exception, not the rule, but Queen Mary II has pods for 30 knot cruise.
DeleteDoes anyone have any thoughts about the ruggedness of pods? For example, would shock testing (or actual shocks from mines, torpedoes) unduly damage pods or are they robust enough to shake off shock?
DeleteThey use them on icebreakers.
Delete"Queen Mary II has pods for 30 knot cruise."
DeleteIndeed! Very impressive. I also like the location of the turbines below the funnel so that air intake ducting is not required - ingenious! I don't know if that would be wise for a warship as it would expose the turbines to battle damage but, still, a fascinating design idea.
"They use them on icebreakers."
DeleteNot exactly the same as shock or battle damage but it does suggest a degree of robustness!
The French Mistral class LPD uses two Rolls Royce 7 MW pods for propulsion.
DeleteDo we need 2 navies?
ReplyDeleteOne with ships for only war fighting. These would be as you described with “austere” accommodation etc. They would ONLY exercise or fight war. I.e. leave port, undertake the mission (be it an exercise or fight) and return.
Other ships would be built for “peace time war fighting”. These would be designed for longer deployments. Examples of their use would be:
“bobbing up and down” off the coast of Syria ready to launch TLAM’s.
Escorting oil tankers past Iran
Stopping Somalian pirates
Following Chinese / Russian navy vessels
Just a though?
"Following Chinese / Russian navy vessels"
DeleteJust to pick one example. If it's peacetime, you don't need a $2B Burke armed with 96 VLS. No is going to shoot at you and you're not going to shoot at them. All you need to follow them is an engine. A civilian yacht costing $1M can do the job. Why pay more?
I wonder if the Chinese are building their warships with "comfort" in mind...
ReplyDeleteInterestingly, I saw a website, not too long ago, that had a photo spread on the galley service in a Chinese ship. I can't recall what ship type. Anyways, the food service was very impressive - extensive, varied, copious, and visually high quality. So that, at least, was an emphasis on comfort. Of course, it was the Chinese so it could well have been a staged propaganda photo event!
Delete1 child policy forces them to up the ante a bit. The new generation is much less expendable. Really, they have already overshot the mark and will shortly be in need of more people.
Delete"With an additional 50-60 ft to play with, as specified for the modern destroyer design, and a little rearranging (weapons on top of the hangar, for example, as on the Perry and Burke) we can easily accommodate the hangar and flight deck."
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure what you have in mind for the minimum length of a flight deck (there must be a Navy design standard that covers that), but given the size of the SeaHawk, I would think its around 80 feet. The tail rotor could extend over the flight deck, but a helicopter needs clear access to land and take off.
And, with weapons so densely packed, a single heavy anti ship missile could take out multiple weapons. Granted, that is what the Phalanx, SeaRAM, and armor are there to prevent.
It seems the Navy follows CAP 437 for standard helo deck length. Same as everybody else.
DeleteAnother paradigm at work! CAP 437 appears to be a civilian/commercial standard developed for offshore oil platforms.
DeleteA warship needs a safe landing area, of course, but it doesn't need the extent of safety built into civilian standards. For example, special forces have been known to just 'land' portions of the helo on a building roof top to discharge troops. A warship can get by, safely, with far less safety margin than promulgated in civilian applications.
Which is why they don't require the circular area, but I haven't seen a flight deck with less length than the d value for what its designed for yet. The roof doesn't pitch and roll and move at 20 knots.
DeleteI like what youve done here CNO... This absolutely proves the point. This is the kind of thought that should go from napkin doodle to blueprint to RFD proposal!!! The weapons density is somthing that recalls the comparisons of US and Soviet ships of the cold war...where their ships bristled with weapons and made contemporary American ships look like merchants...
ReplyDeleteWhat is this thing going to use for a fire control radar?
DeleteTRS-3D or equivalent.
DeleteThe Fletchers sucesssors as derivatives Sumner and Gearings were upgraded after the war, as the weapons fit was out of date by then.
ReplyDeleteIts hard to find specific references to why current warship designs are wider instead of longer like their immediate predecessors. I saw an aerial view of a Burke tied up beside a Tico Cruiser and it was clear the Burke was shorter and wider despite being roughly the same displacement. Both have the same sort of GT engines, VLS , flat plate search radars etc.
However we saw the same growth in size of nuclear submarines , but an earlier generation with the LA class. The reasons often given were the propulsion system was now 'rafted' as part of the reduction in underwater radiated noise. I understand more recently much the same has happened with surface ships to make large reductions in noise, which started with propellers and worked its way through the various major machinery systems right down to specific pumps and their sea outlets. Do we now have the major propulsion units on isolation rafts inside the hull which has led to a much wider ship. The width is a major driver of displacement which allows more space for accommodation, improves the stability in a damaged condition and so on
WE had isolated engineering equipment on Knox FFs I was on, not new. As far as beam is concerned, its all has to do with sea keeping. When I was on Turner Joy (Forrest Sherman class) we had what was called a "hurricane bow" for improved sea keeping. Went through some major weather events on her, we still ran submerged, not as as bad as the Gearings I served on. Check out you tube under Tin Can Riders. Really good shots of how wet the old cans were compared to newer ones, good Stones tune as well.
Delete"I understand more recently much the same has happened with surface ships to make large reductions in noise"
DeleteIn addition to SRB's comment about the Knoxes, the Spruance class had all the acoustic isolation built in (and probably more that I don't know about!) as they were intended from the start to be ASW destroyers and remain, to this day, the finest ASW vessel ever built. It's a shame they were converted to submarines.
((Don McCollor)...Three comments. In WW2, even larger landing craft had some armor (an ingenious British invention of hard crushed rock in mastic backed by a steel plate round the bridge). The point is to protect only vital areas...I would suggest, if possible to retain two of the 20mm mounts or the 40 mm mount. This provides a less drastic alternative to the CIWS for minor altercations (something smaller than a sledgehammer)... A point not touched on in "luxury accommodations" is fire. A few US warships in early WW2 burned like shingle factories after they were hit. This was gradually forgotten till the Falklands, then is being forgotten again...
ReplyDeleteYou're quite right and I addressed the fire hazard of crew comforts in a comment in the previous post. Here's what I had to say:
Delete"You also need to think from a battle damage perspective. Every item you place on a ship is a potential shrapnel, fire, and obstruction hazard. Every TV, game console, exercise bike, couch, on a WARship in battle is a potential life-threatening problem. Traditionally, when ships anticipate battle they 'strip ship' and eject all those things because they understand that they are fire, shrapnel, and obstruction hazards. Did you read the reports on the Burke collisions? They explicitly described the obstructions that the crew's 'comforts' became and how they hazarded (and may have killed) the crew's evacuation from affected compartments. I did a post on that."
Here's the link to the entire comment: Comment
(Don McCollor)...missed the import of that comment. My apologies.
DeleteNo problem. While 'stripping ship' has been a time honored tradition before battle, in this day of terrorism (and incompetent navigation!) there's no such thing as a ship that is not in potential danger. Therefore, the default state of every warship should be 'stripped'.
DeleteThe Navy's reports about the crews of the Burkes struggling to get out of debris obstructed compartments was heart-wrenching and angering. Some sailors likely died because of their comforts. There was no need for that. We should 'strip' every ship in the fleet.
I like her. Only suggestion is not to restrict the torpedos to 21 inch. That way she can take advanced ones with AI perhaps. Dump it into the water, point it in the right direction, and let it hunt. A mobile mine.
ReplyDeleteWhen I was deployed to Kuwait we very little space. 40 man tent, had enough room for cot, lawn chair, and a 3 x 2 x 2 container that served as storage and table. Granted we could walk around base, but we spent all that time in there. The lack of space was not the worst part. It was the sheer boredom. My job was POL. Since contractors had the contract at the airfield I was regulated to guard duty and busy work.
ReplyDeleteIn my personal experience, a sense of purpose is more important than creature comforts.
A modern 5in gun has a barrel length 24 calibers or 10 feet longer than its WW2 ancestor plus it has greater recoil, combined this might necessitate additional space between mounts to provide sufficient supporting structure and clearance to operate.
ReplyDeleteAlso, modern 5in ammunition is about 5 inches longer (26 versus 20.75 inches) than their WW2 versions which reduces the number of rounds that could be carried per mount. Plus, guided 5in rounds are twice as long as a standard round which further limits how many rounds could be carried.
Replacing the amidship 20mm guns, which were deck-mounted, with a SeaRAM would limit the ability of the SeaRAM to identify and engage an incoming missile. The Fletchers ran pretty low in the water with the deck about 20 feet above the water. This would reduce range and time to identify and engage an incoming missile.
The same applies bridge mounted radar. Compared to the Freedom-class LCS, a bridge mounted radar on the a Fletcher-class would be about 2/3rd as high above the water which would greatly limit its range. Based on pictures (and a semi-calibrated eyeball), the radar on the LCS is about 90 feet above the water and about 60 feet for a Fletcher which would reduce the radar/visual range by about 20%.
I agree the Navy needs to review how it builds warships and we especially need a low-end ship for ASW.
"A modern 5in gun has a barrel length"
DeleteWho cares? You obviously completely missed the point of the exercise or else are just looking to argue for the sake of arguing. No one is going to build an exact replica of a Fletcher and mount modern weapons on it. It was an exercise to demonstrate weapons density paradigm, nothing more.
Don't be obtuse.
Of course no one would build a replica of the Fletcher nor is it something I suggested. I was only pointing out some obvious limitations in your thought experiment. Weapons and sensors need appropriate spacing to properly function.
Delete"limitations in your thought experiment."
DeleteIt was a thought experiment not a construction blueprint. If a few extra feet are needed here or there, so what? It doesn't change the demonstration of the weapons density paradigm. I would also point out that modern electronics are much smaller than WWII era mechanical devices. Thus, some spacings might need to be decreased! That's probably all that needs to be said about this.
Not sure there's an answer, doubt it but does anybody in the US or West still know how to design armour onto a ship? Do we have the right steel and production plants for it? I would guess that USN would have to order some R&D into armour design which is unlikely....it goes against everything USN believes in.....it would require the complete mindset reversal, my inclination is to believe this would happen only after a disastrous naval battle.
ReplyDeleteIt rejoins my thoughts about CNO proposed design, there's nothing wrong with it, actually, great design and CONOPS which is desperately needed, the biggest problem being it goes against everything current USN Leadership believes in!!!
Armor doesn't have to be steel, composites might be the answer.
DeleteBoat Guy
BG, quite right! There are many land vehicle armor schemes that might be adaptable to ships. Composites, laminated, spaced, alternate materials, reactive, etc. are all worth looking at. Not all will be adaptable, I'm sure, but no one is even looking at them, to the best of my knowledge.
DeleteI was wondering about the placement of the 5 inch guns fore and aft. The majority of current ships have the gun near the bow, but WWII ships have them along the whole length of the ship. If you have only one gun is there a benefit to a bow location rather than a stern location? I realize either location limits the arc of fire that can be employed by the gun because the superstructure is in the way. It would seem that having a bow and stern gun would allow you to engage with guns in a wider range of settings (advancing, flanking, retreating). Just wondering why having the gun in the bow is so dominant. Helicopters land on the stern, so the gun is on the bow?
ReplyDelete"Just wondering why having the gun in the bow is so dominant."
DeleteI don't know but I suspect it's just the most convenient place. As you noted, the stern is consumed by flight deck and hangar. It also allows you to have an arc of fire while facing the threat. Otherwise, you'd always have to be sailing away from the enemy in order to fire.
Bear in mind that on modern ships a gun is just an afterthought so it's placed where nothing else needs to go. Modern ship designers really don't expect to ever use a gun in combat so placement doesn't matter. In the designer's mind, the gun is more of a sop to tradition than a useful weapon. They're wrong, just like the Air Force was wrong about the end of dogfights, but that's their mentality.
As far as I can see, only the Italians still have fore and aft mounted main guns, usually 76mm aft, and 76/127mm fore. The aft gun is mounted above the hanger.
DeleteThey are the only people who mount significant guns, as well as VLS on their carriers too (see the Trieste-it's an amphibious assault carrier but has more intrinsic firepower than many frigates)
I don't understand why most countries would underarm their warships. It's like CNO says, current ships aren't WAR-ships
Given current "cold war" behaviour, with many ramming attempts, I don';t know why you'd want to only have a 30mm gun facing aft at a 6000-12000 ton ship approaching you.
Andrew
If the CONOPS is for a cheap destroyer so as to be able to afford to build in large numbers it needs to be a single-function ship as Fletcher. CNO proposed design will be an expensive multi-function ship, ASuW and ASW, not saying a destroyer does not need ASW defense capabilities as well as AAW defense capabilities.
ReplyDeleteASW ships frigates/corvettes would be semi-equivalent to the WWII DE's built in their hundreds not the destroyers, they require quiet attributes/design compared to a destroyer to be effective, if incorporated into a destroyer the costs will balloon. ASW frigates HM&E need to quiet which costs plus helo, flight deck, hanger etc, etc.
What should never be forgotten is that Navy O&M costs much higher than build costs, as far as know Navy does not break figures out by class, expect Burkes O&M three times build cost if not more over life, three times more important than build cost and hardly ever mentioned except in context of the massive backlogs in shipyard maintenance. Big ticket items in O&M are crew and fuel.
As crew costs estimated at quarter million dollar plus p.a. more than a few years ago if you believe DoD and RAND figures, Fletcher crew 330 x .25 aprox $85 million pus p.a. 20 years life total approx $1.7 billion just for crew, so easy to see why O&M such big figures. CNO agues you need big crew for DC, but to build big fleet would argue need to bring O&M down drastically per ship to fund the bigger fleet and that means smaller crews, half of Fletcher, to achieve that needs good R&D, design and tech for DC to bring it into the 21st century from the 1940's.
If you want low fuel consumption and resulting long range to operate in Pacific without a vulnerable oiler in tow, if available, you need diesel propulsion. GT's are out as they are gas guzzlers unless running at peak output, otherwise fuel consumption falls off a cliff. If you check out the average Burke speeds their GT's very rarely operate at peak output.
Some examples, UK Type 26 built for quietness, HED/CODLOG, not the even more expensive CODLAG, 4x DG's and 2x electric shaft motors approx max 16 knots or its big powerful MT30 GT with its big MGR for max approx 27 knots still very expensive compared to the simple all four diesel, two per shaft Iver Huitfeldt, which does not need a quiet hull as its a AAW frigate/destroyer not an ASW ship, cruise approx 18 knots on single diesel, all four max speed approx 29 knots plus the kicker, the diesel gives an extended range of 2 to 3,000 nm to max of 9,000 nm plus. To be noted the steam powered Dealy class and diesel variant Claud Jones class of the 50's incorporated the hard won lessons of WWII operating in Pacific, range 7,000 nm at 12 knots, max 22 knots, ~2,000t.
Taking Back the Seas is the latest CSBAonline.org report on USN fleet composition just out in December. It goes with a smaller number of LSCs, 78 instead of 104, 52 frigates and 96 DDCs, a small corvette that is optionally unmanned ship with small 24 person crew with 32 VLS cells, 2000 tons or so displacement to act as spare magazines for DDGs. SAGs with two DDGs and six DDCs having the same firepower as 3 DDGs but costing less with less manpower requirements. Interesting reading.
ReplyDeleteDid you read their report? You've read this blog and learned how to critically analyze information. What's your analysis of the report?
DeleteI need to finish reading the report in full. It is different from Restoring American Seapower that came out back in 2017. That report called for 70 some frigates and dozens of missile boats but here frigates are limited to 52, LCS is treated separately from frigates, if I read it right, DDG(X) replace the LSC in future construction and is deferred until 2030 when new technologies have had a chance to mature, older cruisers and destroyers are not given planned SLEPs and allowed to retire, 110 medium USVs are built along with the optionally unmanned DDC corvettes of which 96 are built with 32 VLS plus launchers for future hypersonic weapons which are not fitted to new DDG construction, DDG 51 FLight III and IIIA are built until DDG(X)comes online. Report holds that LSC is too expensive and building smaller DDCs are cheaper and easier to crew than more DDGs/CGs.
ReplyDeleteAir defense shifts to killing incoming missiles at the medium range level of 10-30 miles using EW, microwave weapons, future lasers, HVP fired from legacy 5 inch guns, ESSM and RAM and CIWS that are all cheaper than SM2/6 which should be used to kill the launching aircraft along with long range ASROC able to suppress subs out to 100 miles. Use MDUSVs for sensor platforms, multistatic radars, ASW and use of decoys.
If valid, the report would save money with a sustainable fleet in numbers of cheaper and smaller crewed ships that would create problems in an enemy trying to target our ships because of so many targets.
I would keep the older ships in commission with SLEPs and reduce the number of LSCs, build more cheaper frigates and adopt DDCs and MDUSVs as outlined in report but 2030 is too long for the DDG(X) to come out. Try for 2027 if feasible.
I still need to read the whole report in detail. So far I've just skimmed the highlights and then I'll get back to you with more analysis of my own but I am just a civilian enthusiast and not a naval officer or naval architect.
Well, you summarized the recommended fleet structure but you didn't analyze the report. You didn't ask 'why'? Why was the report written? Why is a new force structure needed? Did the recommended structure address the need for a change (the why)? Is the recommended structure the best alternative or just the flavor of the month?
DeleteYou've done what the Navy has done. You've jumped right over and past the 'why' (the need for a different fleet structure) and into the 'how'. No one - no one - has demonstrated via wargames or any other method that unmanned vessels and a revised force structure are a good and viable concept. Despite this stunning lack of proof of concept, the Navy (and CSBA) have leaped totally on the unmanned bandwagon.
On an interesting and related side note, the Marine Commandant has done the exact same thing by totally revising the Marine concept with zero evidence that the changes are good and viable.
CSBA has a history of producing reports that cater to Navy desires but fall woefully short of data, evidence, and common sense.
I believe the report was written because of the cost of a continued emphasis on having 104 LSCs that become more expensive to build and more manpower. One new ship type, DDC or corvette was proposed in place of the LUSV but has little defensive armament and while small on crew size, one might argue that an SAG just consist of three DDGs or a pair of DDGs and the proposed LSC. Fewer crew are involved and the ships are manned but with the option of unmanned operation. I read your post on Unmanned vessels like the MUSV. Sending unarmed vessels beyond the range of covering fire by manned DDGs to do ASW tracking is foolish.
ReplyDeleteThe DDC needs to have adequate air defense via SeaRAM and perhaps ESSM in Mk 56 launchers. Having crew means that Congress can be satisfied that men/women will control the 32 cell VLS instead of computers with a man in the loop operation. For now, Congress forbids unmanned ships with VLS. DDC can be operated remotely if the risk to crew is too great but normally operates with crew, albeit a small one. But, I agree, such new technology needs time to mature so consider the DDCs coming out in 2025 when the first frigate is nearly complete.
Again, I have to read the report in full. I did not know that CSBA writes to appease the Navy. I assumed that they were giving their best opinion on force structure and new types of vessels. As for MDUSV, a minimal self defense armament is needed of SeaRAM launcher and a CIWS even if size does increase some.
Consider this about crew size: if an unmanned vessel is just as effective as a manned ship, why do we have crews? If an unmanned vessel is not as effective, why are we replacing manned ships with unmanned - and, yes, that's exactly what the Navy has publicly stated they're going to do. Not on a 1-for-1 basis but to a significant degree.
DeleteFurther, with no crew for damage control, every unmanned vessel of whatever size is an automatic one-hit kill unless the hit causes so little damage as to be insignificant. The Navy considers the LCS, with crew, to be a one-hit abandonment so unmanned vessels have to be a complete loss with any hit. Do we really want to have battle groups composed largely of one-hit-sunk vessels?
Oh, and I'm still waiting to see the results of any realistic wargame involving unmanned vessels. There aren't any! And yet we're leaping completely into unmanned ships. Does that seem wise?
No, it is not wise. Such ships must be tested extensively first and concepts of operations devised. There is a squadron devoted to using the Zumwalts and unmanned ships to supposedly prove these matters out. Time will tell if unmanned ships have a role. Myself, nothing bigger than an MDUSV should be attempted unless it is an optionally unmanned ship like the proposed CSBA corvette or DDC. But the CSBA report doesn't consider damage control so these are also 'one hit' ships. Even with extensive automation, I doubt the damage control function can be fulfilled by 16-24 crew whose main function is security. They need to be able to fight the ship and repair the ship under fire like full manned vessels although advancing automation can reduce crew size, below a minimum number, you can't do maintenance and damage control.
ReplyDeleteFair enough. So, what's your proposed solution? Or, is the current force structure okay, as is?
DeleteI think we need more small combatants, but the only design ready to go is the winner of the FFG competition. And that ship has problems with it's 57mm main gun. Main gun should be five inch with 57mm for air defense role, if the MAD-FIRES program succeeds, the 57mm will be able to shoot down incoming antiship missiles. A bow sonar is needed due to limitations of the VDS and MFTA systems and 48 VLS is preferable.
ReplyDeleteNo LDUSVs, the MDUSVs are big enough and are more expendable but need some kind of minimal self defense such as a CIWS gun and SeaRAM. The proposed DDC is interesting but with a very small crew, can not do damage control and maintenance underway may be impossible. Larger crew needed. Can be operated remotely if necessary but is to be built as a manned ship. I don't know how big a crew you will need to maintain and do damage control. Perhaps 100? 75? Maybe. Will be cheap and expendable too I guess. The 104 LSCs may be too much expense. CSBA recommendation of 78 ships would be cheaper. It's mass producing small surface combatants that are manned is the issue. Even the DDC will cost a few hundred million per hull but you could build them in smaller shipyards and spread the work around. As for the FFG, FREMM Italian variant seems best for now to win the competition but the shipyard can only build two at a time. To get a 52 ship force or greater, more facilities need to be built and/or the work spread among shipyards. Money is the big issue with Columbia SSBN looking to steal 30% plus of the annual shipbuilding budget. It must be financed by the Sea Based Deterrent Fund and not the shipbuilding budget or pump more money into the system but Congress might balk to say nothing of the other Services wanting their piece of the pie as well. CSBA report seeks to save money but I don't agree with all their conclusions. To sum up, more smaller cheaper ships like the flawed FFG and perhaps the DDC are needed with as many SSCs as there are LSCs in the current force. OHP was built in numbers but could we do that today at today's prices?
"how big a crew you will need to maintain and do damage control."
DeleteI urge you to read the book, "Missile Inbound", which tells the story of the attack on the Stark. In particular, it extensively covers the damage control efforts and the number one conclusion is that bodies are the most important factor in damage control. People simply can't perform hard, physical work in excessive heat and choking smoke while fighting fires for more than a short period of time. Then, either you feed fresh bodies into the damage control effort or your ship sinks. The Stark's Captain maintains that they barely had enough bodies - well, actually, he says they didn't have enough but they barely succeeded through herculean efforts. The Navy seems to have totally forgotten the damage control lessons that have been learned and paid for in blood and lost ships.
"To sum up, more smaller cheaper ships"
Okay, how about ten foot speedboats? We can buy thousands of them. Relax, I know your answer is that's ridiculous, they have no combat power so it doesn't matter how many we buy - and you're right.
Now, apply that same logic to your statement about smaller, cheaper ships. What can they do that will actually contribute meaningful combat power to the fleet? Therein lies the problem. The Navy, and many observers, have completely bought into the small vessel, unmanned vessel idea without actually asking themselves what those craft can actually do to improve overall combat power.
Think about it. A whole bunch of small (manned or unmanned) craft with very limited sensors and weapons aren't likely to help with much. What will they actually do? A whole bunch of tiny craft flitting around a carrier group, for example, are just easy targets waiting to be picked off at the enemy's leisure or, worse, will call attention to the carrier because of their constant communications and fuel resupply needs and large acoustic signatures (these aren't going to be acoustically quieted with rafted machinery), among other attention-drawing actions.
Neither the Navy nor CSBA has addressed the only question that matters: what can these things do that's useful in the real combat world? If this sounds like I'm asking about a CONOPS … I am - and we don't have one!
I read the CSBA report and the striking thing was the focus on maneuver warfare rather than attrition warfare. If you are not a real threat, why be on the water?
ReplyDelete"Furthermore, the goal of U.S. naval forces is primarily to deter conflict by convincing adversaries their aggression could be unsuccessful, not to seek attrition as a means of punishment only after the initiation of hostilities. In shifting from attrition to maneuver as the focus of naval operations....."
My goal for a Navy-- Convince adversaries their aggression will be utterly and hopelessly unsuccessful, all the ships used in the aggression will be at the bottom of the sea and every shipyard used to build the ships will be in flames.
DeleteOr we could just sail around, maneuvering with even more drones maneuvering till the Chinese sink all our ships/drones.
"I read the CSBA report and the striking thing was the focus on maneuver warfare rather than attrition warfare."
DeleteI apologize, I missed your comment the first time around. You are spot on. Reflecting the devaluation of hard work by our society at large, the Navy/military is trying to win wars without doing the hard work of combat. The CSBA report seems to believe that if we sail around (maneuver) with sufficient (what?) that we'll overawe the enemy into surrender without having to actually engage in combat.
CSBA's reputation is for this kind of fantasized vision of war and this report is yet another example.