We’re not done with the Fletcher, yet!
In various posts and comments, we’ve discussed both a literal version of a modernized Fletcher (see, “Knee Jerks and Paradigms”) and a conceptual version of a modern Fletcher. Just for fun, let’s see what an exact copy of a Fletcher would offer the US Navy, if anything.
For this conceptual exercise, a WWII Fletcher is magically transported to today and incorporated into the fleet. What, if anything, would such a ship be good for, today? What missions/tasks could it usefully perform? Does it have anything to offer? Bear in mind that a typical Fletcher might have 10x 40 mm, 7x 20 mm, and 5x 5”/38 guns. Let’s see what a Fletcher might do …
 |
| Fletcher Class DD - It's No LCS or Zumwalt ! |
Peacetime Missions
Anti-UAV (thanks to G2mil) – The Fletcher’s numerous 20 mm, 40 mm, and 5” guns can throw up a wall of lead that no tactical UAV would have a chance of penetrating.
Anti-Swarm – Iran has not been shy about aggressively exercising its swarm boats and a Fletcher would be ideal for disrupting those exercises. If events escalated, the Fletcher’s firepower would make short work of any swarm boats.
Anti-Piracy – A Fletcher, while still a vast overkill, is at least a smaller vessel than a Burke and with outstanding speed and firepower would be highly effective at disrupting pirate activities.
Contesting China’s Coast Guard and Militia – China’s ‘fishing fleets’, protected by their coast guard, have been used to establish false territorial claims. An armored and heavily armed Fletcher would be ideal for disrupting those attempts.
Freedom of Navigation (FON) – While FON exercises are worse than useless, the Navy seems determined to conduct them. That being the case, there would be no better suited ship than a Fletcher. Every time we do a FON, the Chinese show up to try to intimidate us into leaving (often successfully, in that we perform the operation and quickly leave). A Fletcher, armored and packed with guns would have no reason to be intimidated and would be well suited to protect itself while taking its time on the mission.
Special Operations Support – A Fletcher would be ideal for special operations work. It is small, fast and has enough firepower to support operators ashore, if needed.
Presence – Nothing says presence like a lot of highly visible guns on a ship with armor. A Fletcher is just plain intimidating by today’s milquetoast standards!
Of course, peacetime missions are only as effective as the fortitude of nation and Navy. If we won’t let our ships confront enemies then we don’t really need a Navy, at all, do we?
War Missions
Blockade – One of the problems current navies face in executing a blockade is that they don’t actually have much in the way of ship-sinking capability. A Fletcher, armed with 10x heavy torpedoes, is a legitimate ship-killer.
UAV Screening – For the types of small, slow, tactical UAVs routinely encountered by our ships, a Fletcher would be a devastatingly effective anti-UAV screen. The focused attention of dozens of guns of all sizes would create a literal impenetrable wall of lead.
Anti-Swarm – The problem with fighting swarms is dwell time. It takes far too long for a single weapon to achieve a demonstrable kill so that it can move on to the next target before the rest of the swarm closes in. A Fletcher’s firepower can quickly blot out small boats. Consider the LCS whose job is anti-swarm and is equipped with a single 57 mm gun and two 30 mm guns (and maybe, someday, Hellfires?). Compare that to the Fletcher’s dozens of guns. Which would you rather have protecting you from a swarm?
Anti-Ship - Very few ships today could stand in a toe-to-toe fight with a Fletcher, if the Fletcher can reach gun range. A Fletcher would be ideal for engaging the Iranian navy, the NKorean navy (such as it is), or Russian or Chinese ships in confined waters.
Special Operations Support – As noted above, the small size, speed, and firepower of a Fletcher would be a boon to special operations.
Naval Gunfire Support – While 5” guns are not the ultimate in naval gun support, the Fletcher’s 5x 5” guns represent potent fire support by today’s standards and is the equivalent of five Burkes, each with their single 5” gun.
Convoy Escort – Though lacking long range anti-air capability and today’s ASW sonar, a Fletcher would still make a useful general purpose convoy escort.
ASW – Though lacking today’s sonar capabilities, a Fletcher, working with another sensor asset, would provide significant ASW firepower in the form of depth charges to deal with the ubiquitous SSK submarines.
Finally, consider these general characteristics of a Fletcher as compared to today’s ships of whatever size:
- Great range
- Great speed; as much or more than the LCS
- Armor; nothing today matches it
- Overwhelming short range firepower
That’s not a bad set of WARship characteristics, is it? Discouragingly, none of our current surface ships can come close to matching that combination. What does that say about our current ships?
The conclusion is inescapable. A Fletcher, unaltered from WWII, would still be a highly useful vessel in today’s fleet, if properly used. In particular, the combination of armor and firepower would be extremely useful in contesting Iranian and Chinese provocations … if we would begin contesting instead of appeasing.
Firepower is always useful and the Fletcher represents a concentration of firepower not seen in today’s ships.
That one could even imagine an actual Fletcher being not only useful today but, quite likely, far more useful and valuable than an LCS or Zumwalt is a scathing indictment of our ship design efforts over the last several decades.
Could we maybe add CIWS and/or SeaRAM? Some of these missions might need to handle at least low end cruise missiles.
ReplyDeleteThe premise was not to make a better Fletcher but to see how effective a heavily gun-armed ship would be today. As the post stated, that we could even imagine an 80 yr old ship being useful today is an indictment of our ship design efforts!
DeleteLove the idea of using her to kill boat swarms.
ReplyDelete"A Fletcher, armed with 10x heavy torpedoes, is a legitimate ship-killer."
How well would WWII era torpedoes work against today's huge merchant ships?
Just curious.
The Fletchers carried 21 inch Mk15 torpedoes with 800 lb warheads. Supertanker size ships are tough targets to sink, without a doubt, but heavyweight torpedoes offer the best ship-sinking capability we have. Hopefully, a salvo of 5 or so would do the trick.
DeleteOne thing that this exercise brings out is the disappearance of large (21"/533mm) torpedoes from surface ships. Why? Why not bring them back?
ReplyDeleteAs a partial answer to the question, "How well would WWII era torpedoes work against today's huge merchant ships?" Most likely, a lot better than today's lightweight 12.75"/324mm torpedoes.
We did a post on surface ship torpedoes. See, "Surface Ship Torpedoes"
DeleteTo be clear, while our surface ships have only the lightweight ASW torpedoes, the submarines use the Mk48 heavyweight torpedo.
And, quoting from the referenced post, "That brings us to today. The US Navy has no surface anti-ship torpedo capability and only a marginally effective submarine launched anti-ship torpedo, the Mk48.
DeleteThe next question, and the main point of this post, is, does the US Navy need a surface anti-ship torpedo launch capability?"
And my answer is not only yes, but hell yes. The Russians clearly have a significant capability in that area, and with good reason. We should too.
When the Knoxes came out, I thought it was a weakness that they had fixed torpedo tubes. Then I realized that 1) with homing torpedoes, you really don't have to point the tube at the target, and 2) the Mk32s were essentially impossible to reload underway. Those realizations led me to the idea of fixed tubes emanating from a submarine-like torpedo room, with reloads and loading equipment. And while you're at it, why not have over-and-under tubes, port and starboard, each with one 12.75"/324mm tube on top of one 21"/533mm tube?
Torpedoes and anti-ship missiles are two areas where the USN is definitely on the back foot vis-a-vis China or Russia, and that needs to be fixed.
As far as I've researched the old italian Maestrale Class frigates are probabily the last ships in NATO with 21" torpedoes, they have 2 fixed tubes at the stern.
DeleteStarting in the 90s many new frigates commissioned by NATO navies (Halifax, F123, T23, REMM and others) have been equipped with 2-4 fixed 12,75" torpedo tubes with automatic or semiautomatic loaders, while in many cases navies insist in mounting Mk32s recycled from other units. Recycling the old launchers you spend next to nothing.
The question remains against which targets you're going to use 21" torpedoes from surface ships. For commerce raiding or raiding choke point they would be optimal in sinking or disabling commercial shipping in the long term. You could probabily use unguided torpedoes at short range against slow non maneuvering shipping.
I'm not so sure of 21" could be that effective against naval vessels, as they are much faster and maneuverable than commercial ships. They would require guided torpedoes. Today a guided 21" torpedo costs alot, at least 3-4-5 millions per shot. While most NATO navies don't have kinetic countermeasures against torpedoes, the russian and the chinese have the RBU launchers, which it seems could be used to destroy incoming torpedoes (a really low cost when compared with price of a torpedo). Strangely those systems have mostly disappeared on NATO navies.
Further modern heavyweight torpedoes have potentially a longer range (depends from the speed and type of attack track) than the shipborne guns, but this range is lower than the range of most antiship missiles. To use torpedoes against a naval vessel would mean that the launching vessel would need to spend a lot of time in the engagement envelope of it's target to be able to launch it's torpedoes. In this timeframe it would be already become the target of incoming antishipmissiles launched by it's intended target.
Anti-ship torpedoes were removed from ships as WW2 ended as getting a destroyer or other ship close enough to use it's short range, slow and unguided torpedoes with all the ship mounted radar and aircraft around was seen as suicide.
DeleteOf course we have modern fast guided torpedoes now but there was a good 40 year gap between what we had in WW2 and todays submarine launched heavy torpedoes.
For the US carrier aircraft became the main anti ship asset while for the USSR it was anti-ship missiles.
"I'm not so sure of 21" could be that effective against naval vessels,"
DeleteJust a reminder, Japanese unguided Long Lance torpedoes did immense amounts of damage to US Navy ships around Guadalcanal. Properly used, and fired in large salvos, unguided torpedoes can still be quite effective against naval targets.
"getting a destroyer or other ship close enough to use it's short range, slow and unguided torpedoes with all the ship mounted radar and aircraft around was seen as suicide."
DeleteNo. Torpedoes were removed towards the end of the war because the Japanese no longer had many ships and space was needed for anti-aircraft guns as aircraft were a much bigger threat, at that point.
Destroyers generally were successful in pressing torpedo attacks to the launch point. Consider the Battle Off Samar as an outstanding example.
As far as suicide goes, in the cold math of war, losing a destroyer or DE to sink a cruiser or battleship has to be considered a win.
On the other side of the coin, the absence of anti-shipping torpedoes on all sides does simplify our hypothetical Fletcher as defender situation. While Destroyers have their origins in anti-torpedo boat work, a single home-grown unguided torpedo mount would make even a single Iranian boat a much greater threat to shipping, force a greater response in return, and give them more influence even in peacetime. As has been stated before, we are fortunate that our likely enemies copy our flaws, for now at least.
DeleteIrony being that with adequate spares, it would be the cheapest ship to operate in the fleet! There's nothing crazy complicated to fix.
ReplyDeleteAnother aspect is the moral one. Hear me out, this boat manned with an aggressive competent Capt and crew would be always where the action is compared to what we are doing now: going around in circles on cruise ships. This would bring back a lot of fighting spirit to the fleet.
I can tell you as an old steam engineer, steam driven power plants are very efficent, given you do the proper everyday maintenance and upkeep (PMS)(planned maint. system). Dont know if the Navy even does this anymore. Never rode a Fletcher, have rode a Gearing though, really enjoyed the time on board.Even though they were small and cramped and wet, nobody ever complained, you took it all in stride and did your job.It was a different mind set back then, we still had a few guys left from WW2.
DeleteReally good article on what it was like to be an engineer in the steam Navy. The War Zone/The drive. Making Steam. the life and times of a US Navy chief engineer. July 26, 2017.
Delete"I can tell you as an old steam engineer, steam driven power plants are very efficent"
DeleteThank you for the input. Gas turbines look great, but I keep reading about ships putting into port to have them fixed or swapped out. Given modern tools, are steam driven power plants easier to repair at sea? In my head I am looking for that famous Russian-style quality, 'easy for you to repair youself'.
It all comes down to maintenance and how hard the ships are used. Most of your breakdowns occur in the auxillery equipment (ie. pumps/electrical motors, ect.) That said, all systems are redundant, there's two of everything. You lose a feed pump, you switch to the 2nd one and affect repairs on the down pump. All the ships I served on back then, had a small machine shop with several machinist as crew. 80% of the time we could fix what broke at sea.The most casualty prone item was boilers. Gearings were great, Forrest Shermans had a new 1200 psi boiler that we always had problems with, Adams had same improved boilers but they were used so hard that you always could count on a breakdown. Knox class was great, we never had any boiler or plant problems, other than the stabilizer fins. Even if you lost a boiler you still had three others. At sea you are only running one boiler per fireroom with the other in standby. Same with generators, one has the electrical load, the other one is in standby.(two per engine room). hope that answers your question.
Delete"hope that answers your question."
DeleteIt does, thank you.
Add Search and Rescue, Firefighting, and Towing to the list of capabilities. The Fletcher's speed and seakeeping ability lets it work in weather that would ground helicopters. Its fire hoses are as good as anything in the fleet now (and it's big crew to run them). Its got plenty of horsepower to tow another ship out of danger.
ReplyDeleteThese would be really useful ships to have around even in that original WWII configuration.
ReplyDeleteI know this isn't the point of the post, but I've thought about the possibility of using the Fletcher as the basis for a blue water ASW corvette.
Used to supplement updated Perry's in convoy or even battle group ASW escort.
Helicopter support could come from Perry's, Burkes that are providing AAW coverage, or an escort carrier in a hunter/killer group.
-Bow mounted sonar
-Towed array sonar
-Mk 32 triple torpedo launcher port and starboard
-RBU both fore and aft
-5" gun at the bow
-Phalanx on superstructure oriented forward
-SeaRAM amidships
-Goalkeeper at the stern
-8 or so VLS for combinations of ASROC, ESSM, ASM missiles
Besides use against subs, RBU's fore and aft would be used to curb the enthusiasm of inbound torpedoes.
Is the 39.5' beam and 17.5' draft too small for a bow mounted sonar?
I wouldn't think so, but also don't have a good feel of how much space stuff like that takes up within a hull.
Lutefisk
I thought the WWII destroyers were UNarmored, such that Japanese armor-piercing shells passed through them without detonating, as occurred during the Battle off Samar?
ReplyDeleteAnd G2mil's proposal that the Fletcher be used against enemy UAV swarms, is like a proposal to use main battle tanks against enemy suicide bombers. The low and slow UAVs the Fletcher's guns will be useful against, are short ranged, meaning a modern destroyer can counter them by firing long-ranged missiles at the place the UAVs are launched from; for that reason, no peer competitor will bother using them, until they become desperate enough to use suicide bombers.
Every ship built in WWII war armored to an extent appropriate for their class. I don't have the exact specs in front of me but the Fletchers had something on the order of 1/4" - 1/2" sidewall thickness and the 5" gun mounts were 1/2" - 3/4" or so.
DeleteNote that when I refer to armor, I'm talking about the totality of hull plating and add-on armor, if any.
"a modern destroyer can counter them by firing long-ranged missiles at the place the UAVs are launched from"
?????? We're talking about small, tactical UAVs. You can launch them from your backyard. No enemy is going to conveniently cluster their UAVs in one tight, central location. This is analogous to the rockets Hamas launches at Israel. They can be launched from anywhere.
"such that Japanese armor-piercing shells passed through them without detonating"
DeleteYou're referring to battleship and heavy cruiser armor piercing shells that are designed to penetrate very heavy armor. Such a shell WILL pass right through the thin upperworks of a lightly armored destroyer. A destroyer's armor isn't going to stop - or even detonate - a heavy armor piercing shell.
This is analogous to the rail gun issue. As I've repeatedly theorized, a rail gun projectile will likely pass through a ship cleanly, doing little damage.
"We're talking about small, tactical UAVs. You can launch them from your backyard."
DeleteAnd because they're small, there's no room for a large fuel tank or battery to let me launch them across long distances; and/or a powerful engine to let them speed across these long distances. I'll be well within range of an enemy counterattack if I try using these UAVs.
No peer competitor will bother using them against a warship. Non-state actors will, because they have nothing better.
"No enemy is going to conveniently cluster their UAVs in one tight, central location."
To counter the UAV swarm, hit the UAV control station, as I suggested. A missile and/or artillery barrage will against it will disrupt the controller's ability to use the UAVs quite effectively- and with such small UAVs, you can be certain the controller isn't far away.
I don't know what to say other than you seem to have an unrealistic impression of how UAVs are being used. Iran is flooding the skies with short range, tactical UAVs and they are a major problem for us.
DeleteYour exact argument should apply to the short range rockets launched against Israel and yet Israel cannot find the storage or launch locations.
You have a very low opinion of the tactical acumen of our enemies.
"Your exact argument should apply to the short range rockets..."
DeleteNo, they don't. The rockets are unguided, and effectively fire-and-forget weapons; they don't have or need a control station to make them useful.
UAVs DO need a control station- even a guy sstanding around, holding a remote control. If the UAV is meant to deploy a bomb- either dropped from the UAV, or by using the UAV itself in a kamikaze attack- the controller will need an ability to aim and then fire the weapon, e.g., a camera mounted on the UAV and transmitting images back to him, or a line-of-sight to the UAV if the controller can't use a camera for some reason- the latter will force the controller to deploy the UAV at close range, so he can see where it's going.
"You have a very low opinion of the tactical acumen of our enemies."
I can say the same of you, if you think our enemies don't know a fast rocket flying in a ballistic arc, and a slow tactical UAV flying at low altitude, should be deployed differently.
You made two claims:
Delete1. We could easily destroy the UAV launch sites
2. We could easily destroy the control sites
Both assumptions are incorrect, as I've described.
The launch sites, because they require no special facilities, would be just as impossible to spot as the rocket launches.
A UAV control site is equally inconspicuous and, unless operated by idiots, would be widely separated and impossible to find unless we are capable of locating the comm signals and I'm pretty sure neither of us know the answer to that.
So, the conclusion is that we would have little ability to prevent UAV operations other than by destroying or disrupting the UAV itself.
"1. We could easily destroy the UAV launch sites"
DeleteI made no such claim.
"2. We could easily destroy the control sites"
We should at least be able to find them, as they must constantly transmit to the UAVs; if the transmissions are too weak to be detected, then they're too weak to control the UAVs at range, i.e., the enemy is limited to using short-range UAVs.
As for destroying them, Iran's UAV control stations are on Iranian soil, meaning we can't attack them unless we're willing to commit acts of war- but if war is already declared? Then our ships should no longer operate under such limitations.
""1. We could easily destroy the UAV launch sites"
DeleteI made no such claim."
You most certainly did. Here is your statement:
"a modern destroyer can counter them by firing long-ranged missiles at the place the UAVs are launched from;"
"We should at least be able to find them, as they must constantly transmit "
DeleteNo one has demonstrated that capability as far as I know. Do you have some data on UAV comm security?
"You most certainly did."
DeleteThat statement referred to RQ-4 Global Hawk-sized UAVs, which obviously require well-prepared airfields. You then described UAVs that could be launched from a backyard, i.e., those forced to fly "low and slow" because they're too small to do otherwise.
The first is too expensive to be used in swarms, but they can threaten a warship by launching antiship missiles (after another, likely manned aircraft uses its onboard sensors to detect, track, and then designate the warship as a target); the ability to attack at range means a warship needs air defense radars and long-range missiles to counter them, if a carrier isn't providing air cover. The latter cannot carry weapons powerful enough to threaten a warship; anyone can shoot them down with a pintle-mounted machine gun, if the captain of the warship those machine guns are mounted on, is willing to take responsibility for any unintended consequences.
"That statement referred to RQ-4 Global Hawk-sized UAVs"
DeleteNo, it did not. Here's your statement from your first comment regarding the type of UAV:
"The low and slow UAVs the Fletcher's guns will be useful against, are short ranged,"
The most certainly does not describe a Global Hawk type UAV.
I have no problem when you make a mistake. Simply own it and move on. Don't be a lawyer.
I think that there is a lot of day dreaming going on here...a Fletcher class ship as equipped during WW2 would only be useful for terrorizing unarmed (or minimally armed) boats or ships from third world countries. Or shooting down low speed UAVs. A couple of anti-ship missiles from sea, land or air would put a quick end to a Fletcher long before a Fletcher's 5 inch guns were within range. A Fletcher equipped with more modern weapons might stand a better chance, but the reality is that surface ships have been made obsolete by accurate, low cost anti-ship missiles...especially by the hypersonic missiles that Russia and China now have.
ReplyDelete"I think that there is a lot of day dreaming going on here"
DeleteOf course there is! That's the fun. HOWEVER, the lesson from the post is true and valid.
"A couple of anti-ship missiles … put a quick end to a Fletcher"
Not likely. History proves that WWII destroyers could absorb an absurd amount of damage AND CONTINUE TO FIGHT. You might want to review the picket ships at Okinawa. Many ships absorbed multiple kamikaze hits, each the equivalent of an anti-ship missile, without sinking.
"surface ships have been made obsolete by accurate, low cost anti-ship missiles"
Aegis was designed to handle saturation attacks by supersonic missiles. ESSM has produced very good results in testing with Australian ships. RAM, SeaRAM, and CIWS provide the final layer of protection. For sure, a handful of anti-ship missiles are not going to present a serious threat unless our defensive expectations are ludicrously wrong … and that's the key unknown since the Navy refuses to test its defensive systems under realistic conditions.
"terrorizing unarmed (or minimally armed) boats or ships from third world countries. Or shooting down low speed UAVs."
You did note that those were two of the listed missions that would be quite valuable and, by your own admission, perfectly viable? In fact, one of the major challenges facing our Navy is the proliferation of small, tactical UAVs by Iran and others. We're spending enormous sums of money to come up with weapons to counter them and here we have a Fletcher which is ideally outfitted to do exactly that!
I don't think that the Fletchers are as tough as you believe. What does it have...a maximum of 1 inch armour plate? A 20 mm gun would poke a howle in that quite easily. Subsonic Exocets with only a 135 kg warhead caused the RN a lot of grief in 1982; a Kh-22 with a 1000 kg warhead doing Mach 4.6 would cause considerably more damage than an Exocet or a glancing blow by a 200 mph kamakazi Zero...
Delete"I don't think that the Fletchers are as tough as you believe."
DeleteThat's not an opinion on my part, that's documented fact. Read the WWII combat reports.
"a Kh-22 with a 1000 kg warhead doing Mach 4.6 would cause considerably more damage than an Exocet or a glancing blow by a 200 mph kamakazi Zero..."
And a nuclear bomb would cause even more damage! Your statement involved "low cost anti-ship missiles". That means relatively small and slow, like an Exocet. The reality is that the common missiles that would be encountered, like Exocet or the Chinese C-80x, are roughly equivalent to a Kamikaze and WWII destroyers were generally able to absorb multiple hits and survive. Again, not an opinion of mine but documented occurrences.
Is there, somewhere in the world, an anti-ship missile big enough to badly damage or sink a Fletcher? Sure, but those (like BrahMos) are not "low cost anti-ship missiles" and are far less likely to be encountered.
"...the reality is that surface ships have been made obsolete by accurate, low cost anti-ship missiles...especially by the hypersonic missiles that Russia and China now have."
DeleteSurface ships being obsolete has been somthing being said since the days of the Turtle and the Hunley, and then yet again as missiles came along. Nothing's changed. The threats might be bigger, but defenses continue to evolve as well. Maybe the naval battles get pushed further offshore, but ships pushing forward and ships fighting to defend still have no replacement. They accomplish too much on both sides to think they are obsolete, and to say so gives press and manufacturer claims faaaar too much weight. As far as the hypersonics, CNO recently had a post that really shows that, as far as naval warfare, "hype" is the operative part of hypersonics for the most part, and they have lots of evolution to do before they become the surface-Navy-ending crisis everyone thinks they are.
"...surface ships have been made obsolete by accurate, low cost anti-ship missiles..."
ReplyDeleteWhere do you estimate the effectiveness of defensive armaments like ESSM, SeaRAM, and Phalanx at bringing down incoming missiles?
Lutefisk
It's hard to say until after the shooting starts. The Russians have a number of anti-ship missiles that are faster than ESSM or SeaRAM (Kh-22, Kh-90, and the Zircons that can go Mach 9 and which are coming into service). A CWIS only has enough ammo to fire for 15 seconds and it won't stop a missile doing Mach 4...so hypothetically I would say these systems would not be very effective.
Delete"a number of anti-ship missiles that are faster than ESSM or SeaRAM"
DeleteESSM has the same speed or slightly more than a KH-22 depending on flight profile. KH-90 was an experimental effort that never entered service, as far as I know.
That aside, speed differences are irrelevant when the attacking missile is coming straight at the defending missile. Passing shots are a different matter, of course.
The Block 1 CIWS has a firing rate of 3000 rds/min and a drum of 1550 rds which allows for a total firing time of 31 sec. Block 1A has a rate of 4500 rds/min and a drum of 1550 rds for a total firing time of 21 sec. CIWS fires in couple second bursts. Thus, optimistically, if each burst hits its target, CIwS can engage half a dozen to a dozen targets. No one knows the actual performance of CIWS because the Navy hasn't tested it under realistic conditions.
What matters in missile defense is not the relative speeds of the attacking and defending missiles but the maneuverability and guidance of the defending missile. If the defending missile has good guidance and greater maneuverability than the attacking missile, the defense will succeed.
DeleteGreat post CNO! The greatest gift of your website is how you put things into perspective and cause us to think of what "could be". Love it!
ReplyDeleteNot much to add, but a little story about the Fletcher Class USS Heermann (DD 532). Her skipper was Amos Hathaway who was my Comp Sci Professor my Freshman year at The Citadel. We called him "Backaway Hathaway" because if you came within 6ft of him while talking, he would start to back away from you. Classic nerdy computer geek w/ a slide rule & 20 pens in a pocket protector. He had an extremely nervous & skittish demeanor. Some asshole upperclassmen would slam books down behind him and laugh as he would jump out of his skin, but then just keep walking down the hallway.
At the end of every parade, they would fire the salute cannons and he would absolutely jump uncontrollably. Of course, all of us cadets would giggle.
It was only years later, after he died, his story at the Battle of Samar was told in the Alumni Magazine. He faced down the Yamato, the largest battleship ever built, and the rest of the Imperial fleet in a little Fletcher Class Destroyer... and lived to tell the tale. Hathaway expended every 5" round they had and fired every torpedo before retreating. He took a massive amount of damage and almost got sunk for his trouble. Many other sailors weren't so lucky that day.
Fletchers were great ships, crewed by great men!
Thanks for that story! Good contribution. Much appreciated.
DeleteAmazing how many greats walked among us, without us ever knowing!!!
Delete"It's hard to say until after the shooting starts."
ReplyDeleteTrue that.
Ammo is just a matter of devising a larger available supply.
I'm no engineer, why won't a phalanx stop a Mach 4 missile?
Lutefisk
"why won't a phalanx stop a Mach 4 missile?"
DeleteIt will. The concern is whether fragments of the missile would continue on a ballistic path and impact the ship. We have no idea if that would really happen because the Navy refuses to test under realistic conditions.
Of course, if the choice is between being hit by a fully functioning missile and just fragments, I'm pretty confident that everyone would choose fragments. Of course, there are some people who think that if a CIWS won't completely vaporize an attacking missile then it's useless. Again, I'm pretty sure those people would choose fragments when the time comes.
"I'm pretty confident that everyone would choose fragments."
ReplyDeleteAs would I.
That would be a reason to protect the ship's viability by armoring it and strengthening it's structure, I would suppose.
Lutefisk
"That would be a reason to protect the ship's viability by armoring it "
DeleteOf course! So many ill-informed people want to make the argument that if armor can't 100% stop every weapon every made then it serves no purpose. The realist understands that while it would be great if armor could totally stop a weapon, armor is completely justified even if it only stops fragments (shrapnel). People also forget that most missile or projectile impacts will NOT be a perfect right angles to the armor. This means that most 'hits' will be at an angle and, as we know, angled armor is far more effective. So, just because a given piece of armor won't stop a given weapon that hits perfectly dead on (perpendicular to the armor), doesn't mean it won't deflect and stop that same weapon when it hits at an angle.
Despite my multiple posts and comments about armor, so many people still have a flawed understanding of its purpose and effectiveness.
So true... On other venues there are still so many people that dont get it!!! The amount of folks out there that think Iowas for instance can be 'one-shotted' by an ASM because its 'modern' are staggering!!!🤣 In spite of the mention of things like the Stark. Ugh...
DeleteAs I'm thinking about it, I wonder what would happen to the trajectory of the missile/missile fragments as it disintegrates?
ReplyDeleteLutefisk
The fragments would go ballistic which means they would follow a 'straight' line, modified downward due to gravity, which is an arc into the sea as the now unpowered fragments succumb to gravity and fall into the sea. The question is whether they would travel far enough to hit the ship before their arc took them into the sea? Obviously, the faster the initial speed (supersonic or hypersonic missiles), the farther the fragments will travel before arcing into the sea.
DeleteThis also means that the farther out we hit the missile, the more likely the fragments will be to arc into the sea. The closer in the hit occurs, the more likely it is that some fragments will hit the ship.
Of course, it's not as if every fragment will continue on toward the ship. Most fragments would likely be thrown on a path that does not point at the ship and would be no threat.
This is why the Navy desperately needs to do some realistic testing and see how likely this scenario is.
Just a quick comment about the speed of ASMs. The faster the incoming missile is the less time the defender has to detect, track and engage it.
DeleteAnd I have always wondered why do most assume only one attacking missile? The lack of defensive armament on our ships will almost guarantee that one of a salvo of 4 or 5 ASMs will hit it's target. I don't believe that CWIS or SeaRAM can engage multiple targets that quickly.
"And I have always wondered why do most assume only one attacking missile?"
DeleteProbably for the same reason that most assume only one defending ship! The reality is that ships sail in layered groups and multiple ships will be engaging with multiple weapons at varying distances. ESSM will defend the horizon while RAM/SeaRAM/CIWS will defend the close in. In special cases, the Standard missile may also play a role.
That said, you are absolutely right that a salvo of attacking missiles will assure that one or more get through. We've repeatedly called for much more in the way of close in defensive weapons on our ships. AAW ships with just one or two close in weapons are a joke.
"The faster the incoming missile is the less time the defender has to detect, track and engage it."
Conversely, the faster the incoming missile is the less time the attacking missile has to detect, track and engage its target. To illustrate, consider an attacking missile that appears at the radar horizon with a speed of Mach 50. The missile would only have a fractional second to search for a target, identify it, track it, and maneuver to hit it. It couldn't do it because there wouldn't be enough time. So, attacking missile speed is a potential double-edged sword that hinders BOTH the defender and attacker.
Most people consider only one side of the missile attack scenario when, in reality, there are two sides and each is impacted by whatever characteristics are under consideration.
I hope that made sense and gave you a bit of perspective.
O/T Recently came across the May 2021 part two report on the 2018 collision between the Norwegian frigate Helge Ingstad and oil tanker that led to its sinking, many similarities to the Fitzgerald and McCain 2017 collisions, a follow up to the original report CNO reported on, worth a read for its additional info.
ReplyDeletehttps://safety4sea.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/2021-05-Helge-Ingstad-eng.pdf?__cf_chl_f_tk=so0QrETtoT29LRDPdgq8hHlKrgS.yF.zfnUqIzRd6pI-1642496116-0-gaNycGzNCL0
I don't think it would actually take very much adaptation to make that WWII Fletcher a pretty potent modern warship.
ReplyDeleteOne of my beliefs is that a few hours into the next naval conflict radars will be turned off, ships will adopt radio silence, and all the crews' cellphones will be tossed over the side.
In that EMCON induced blind man's bluff, there will be more meeting engagements that are not BVR than anyone anticipates.
In those knife fights, firepower, armor, CIWS, crew training, and commander competence will be the deciding factors.
Fletchers would probably look pretty good in those types of engagements.
Lutefisk
Keep in mind that some modern USN ships such as the Fords are just straight up incapable of EMCON, so...
DeleteOnce upon a time we required every piece of equipment to be shock hardened and EMCON capable. We allowed that requirement to lapse as we forgot what war was. Now, the Ford, as one example, is a giant electromagnetic beacon when it uses its catapults.
DeleteComNavOps Great post, especially when you start with how the ship would be used. Too many discussions of this sort start with the assumption that a ship has to simultaneously perform all missions by itself in the face of the opposition's combined fleet and air force. I think you have the start of a great conversation to design a modern Fletcher. Could be a lot of fun keeping up with everyone's input.
ReplyDeleteRA
Let's look at the roles you suggest the Fletcher could do.
ReplyDeletePeace
Anti-UAV - It could do this role, but I doubt it could handle a UAV swarm certainly not at a distance. Also expect targeting machines will be faster than people.
Anti-Swarm - Speed boats it could handle. Speed boats with missiles with a decent range, probably not.
Anti-Piracy - Most any military ships can handle pirates.
Contesting China’s Coast Guard and Militia - Contest how? As bumper boats, yes. As soon as shots get fired and the Type 54As get called in the Fletchers better use their fast speed to get out of the area.
Freedom of Navigation (FON) - Most any military ships can handle FON.
Special Operations Support - In an uncontested environment, yes.
Presence - Most any military ships can handle Presence missions, but any military the Fletchers were working with would seriously wonder about our navy.
War
Blockade - Yes, they could blockade tankers and container ships. Then something heavier comes along or the country being blockaded flies a helicopter close enough for the shore anti-ship missile battery to target the Fletcher and to the bottom it goes.
UAV Screening - See Anti-UAV above.
Anti-Swarm - See Anti-Swarm above.
Anti-Ship - A Type 022 or Tarantul targets it just at the horizon and unleashes two missiles at it. If that doesn't work, it keeps sending two more until the job is done. Against a Type 54A or Steregushchiy-class corvette with a helicopter, the ship won't know what destroyed it. In all cases the Fletcher probably doesn't get a shot off.
Special Operations Support - The Fletcher is fast, but so an LCS-2. It also sticks out like a sore thumb on radar. It could launch an RHB to drop off its commandos, but I doubt very much it could get close to the shoreline if the opponent is watching. At least with an LCS you can launch your helicopter from beyond the horizon and have it fly at nap of the earth to get your commandos in.
Naval Gunfire Support - Won't get close enough to try naval gunfire support. See blockade or anti-ship above.
Convoy Escort - I suppose, but depends on the threat. Submarines, possible (see below), but aircraft or surface ships with cruise missiles, even slow ones, I doubt it would put up much of a fight.
ASW - If it had info from other ships and used its active sonar well, then it might have a chance. Though no datalinks so everything is over the radio with the attendant delay and increased possibility of miscommunication. Odds are the sub kills it before it can even get into range to use its torpedos never mind depth charges. We aren't talking U-boats that need to surface periodically and fight well on the surface. Your temporally-transported Fletcher would fight modern AIP/nuclear subs with all that that entails. At least it has speed and could out run an AIP sub. That would likely be its best choice.
A Fletcher destroyer had 329 crew members. A Burke IIA has 323 crew members. The modern ship gets the job done far better and can handle a wider variety of missions. We may only turn out two a year now, but we aren't fighting a war at the present moment so we don't need to try to turn out 175 in two years. Boom/bust don't sustain ship yards, though.
Having more ship yards would be great, but past administrations from Nixon on explicitly closed ship yards like Boston Navy Yard or removed the subsidies that keep other yards open and allowed ship building to move to China, South Korea and Japan.