We’ve extensively discussed the flawed designs of modern
ships as regards firepower and survivability.
Here’s a bit of data from actual combat involving the Russian Bykov (Project
22160) class corvette which, on paper, was nearly the dream design of a modern
small ship: small, fast, cruise missile
armed, helo equipped, unmanned capabilities, complementary diesels and gas
turbines, and flexible modular capabilities to accommodate any imaginable mission. Truly, the epitome of modern naval design. The reality of combat, however, revealed the
flaws in the design sufficient to curtail further production of the class. From a Google-translated TASS article,
This also illustrates the phenomenon of follow-the-leader in
warship design. One of the common
counter arguments to many of ComNavOps’ tenets about warship design is to point
out that every other country is doing it (whatever it is that’s under
discussion), therefore, it must be right.
The reality is that follow-the-leader doesn’t ensure correctness, it
only ensures uniformity of thought.
Everyone wanted battleships immediately prior to WWII but everyone was
wrong, as the rise of carriers demonstrated.
Everyone now wants lightly built ships with extensive crew comforts,
minimal manning, and maximum flexibility.
As the Russians are now finding out, everyone is wrong about modern
WARship design. We’ve already seen that modern
warships are not built to fight and survive (see, “SingleHits”).
Follow-the-leader is not the right way to design a
warship. What’s needed is a solid
understanding of the realities of naval combat leading to an effective Concept
of Operations (CONOPS). We need to stop
playing follow-the-leader about unmanned assets, lightweight naval guns,
minimal manning, no armor, modularity, etc.
These are incorrect, dead end failures in the evolution of WARship
design.
We mastered the principles of WARship design in WWII and we
need to return to them. For the stupid
among you, I’m not calling for a return to actual WWII equipment (though in
many cases that might be superior to what we have now!). I’m calling for a return to the principles of
WARship design that we mastered in WWII.
The principles are timeless and proven successful. We foolishly abandoned those principles and
now desperately need to return to them.
The Bykov failed in combat and yet it represented the
epitome of modern naval design. Does
anyone think the Burke or Constellation will fare better?
_________________________________
"The series of patrol ships of project 22160 will not be continued and will end with the delivery of the last corvette of the series to the Black Sea Fleet next year," the agency's interlocutor said, noting that the customer intends to abandon an additional six units of project 22160 due to the discrepancy between their tactical and technical qualities and combat operating conditions.
He explained that military sailors are not quite satisfied with the characteristics and equipment of corvettes tested in the course of their combat use - insufficient seaworthiness, light armor and vulnerability of power plants, as well as weak anti-aircraft weapons.[1][emphasis added]
 |
| Bykov Class Corvette - the epitome of modern design and a failure in combat |
https://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/14908939
I highly recommend one of my favorite movies, The Enemy Below. Buckley class DE takes on a U boat. Some really great shots of the Buckley and just how heavily armed these little ships were.Why we can't build a modern, affordable version now is damning. The educational system, society and people are just not what they were during WW2, not sure we could even get back to what expertise in design we used to have.
ReplyDelete"Why we can't build a modern, affordable version now"
DeleteThe Navy would reply that they did: the LCS. That the LCS so badly misses the mark is an indictment of the lack of understanding by Navy leadership of history and the realities of naval combat.
This response will focus on just one threat.
ReplyDeleteOne of the Constellation class's missions is protecting the fleet from small surface threats. Presumably that is what the 57 mm gun is for. From discussions on this blog, that weapon does not have an adequate aiming system. Some of the Burkes have lost one 20 mm Vulcan Phalanx, replaced with a 25 mm chain gun. That's not much. A Burke also has a 5-inch gun. The book Black Shoes and Blue Water says the Navy conducted test tires against moving targets and concluded that on average, it would take over 50 shots from a 5-inch gun to knock out a PT boat.
I think it was on September 18th Commander Salamander wrote this on this X (Twitter) account, commenting on sea drone footage of the Russian patrol ship Sergey Kotov under attack:
"A lesson quickly learned in wars at sea by those who have to fight them, & quickly forgotten by those who never put themselves or their children on the front lines; you never have enough small & medium caliber guns.
"Save $100,000 a year at peace, lose a warship at war."
I think one of our challenges remains the use of manned M-2s for point defense with bored mark I mod I eyeballs scanning for threats. Russia and Italy both have mine avoidance and anti-diver sonar systems. Clearly Italy remembers their lesson on that front. We all know we relied on M-2s for point defense at the start of WWII before tossing hordes of 20mm and 40mm guns aboard. We need the eyeballs, but we should also have intelligent EO/IR systems providing hemispheric surveillance around the ship full time. SPIER is a start but looks to be insufficient vs other systems being deployed by other navies. As for our guns. We can either rally behind the Mk 38 mod IV 30mm with dual feed or that and some mix of XM914 remote mounts replacing the M-2 stations on ships. XM914 having the bonus of being able to load Javelin and Stinger. I wish we would get more discussion on block buys of this kind of gear in budget talks as it is as or more important than the ship numbers if the ships aren't well armed.
Delete"SPIER is a start but looks to be insufficient vs other systems being deployed by other navies."
DeleteDo you have a specific system in mind that you feel is better?
I just look at other people's ships like Korean FFX Batch III with 360 degree EO/IR system high on the mast with nothing in the way of the view. SPIER just sits atop the deckhouse not far from the existing Mk 20 and the mast and back of the ship obstruct the view.
DeleteWe could (literally) dust off the blueprints for WW2 ships and update them with modern electronics, weapons, and propulsion.
ReplyDeleteLutefisk
"We could (literally) dust off the blueprints for WW2 ships and update them"
DeleteThat might produce a better result than what we have today but would still be far from what we should have.
A modern design would need many things that a WWII design just didn't have. For example, it would need a complete redesign of the hull, superstructure, fittings, and materials to incorporate maximum stealth, not just new sensors but an all new sensor scheme emphasizing passive sensing, much more distributed VLS, extensive UAV capability, VDS capability, and so on, depending on ship type.
"...it would need a complete redesign of the hull"
DeleteDo you think they could gain more efficiency out of the hulls?
The WW2 designs were fast, but it's hard to imagine that, with modern fluid-dynamic modeling, that they couldn't squeeze more speed/range out of them.
Lutefisk
I'd like to see it done just to prove the point. I agree clean-sheet designs would be even better, but the Navy still believes so many myths about armor, number of weapons, minimal crew accommodations, etc. They don't believe it's possible to have a fast, armored ship with the Constellation's weapons/sensors and a crew of 300 for less than 10,000 tons. This would show what is possible even before modern hull/superstructure/power plant optimization.
DeleteThe blueprints are available in government archives. Maybe even a couple of retired engineers could show a rough remake of a (3,500 ton fully loaded) Gearing? Taiwan already gave us a head start with their Yang redesign.
https://www.archives.gov/research/cartographic/ship-plans
I'm not a navy person so I don't even pretend to understand the nuances of hull design.
DeleteBut superstructures could be totally reshaped to a more stealthy style with what I'd think would be a minimum of trouble.
Lutefisk
"superstructures could be totally reshaped to a more stealthy style with what I'd think would be a minimum of trouble."
DeleteYou'd think but not quite. Stealthy means slanting the sides. When you do that, you make the base wider and/or the top smaller. That changes the internal dimensions of whatever compartments were there. It also changes centers of gravity, total weight, and weight distribution. It also impacts available deck space. And so on. The changes just keep cascading.
It would be interesting to have a computer program that could be used to design ships like that...something simple enough that I could work it. :)
DeleteLutefisk
"...the Navy conducted test tires against moving targets and concluded that on average, it would take over 50 shots from a 5-inch gun to knock out a PT boat."
ReplyDeleteI think the best answer is submunitions for the 5" (and larger) guns versus the speedboats.
Lutefisk
If you're talking swarms as opposed to single boats then, no, because submunitions don't provide proof of kill and dwell time becomes problematic.
DeleteI would think that the 5" gun's effectiveness against speed boats would be the submunitions fired at long range.
DeleteThis would be similar to the Cold War idea of using DPICM and scatterable mines fired from artillery at Soviet tank formations.
At closer range, it seems that they can't track fast enough to get rounds on target.
Lutefisk
Somewhat related to vulnerable ships that has been bothering me lately is one hit shipyards. How long would China retain their shipyard capacity in a full scale war? My thinking is their disadvantage is asymmetric because they'd have to completely suppress Taiwan, Japan, the US, etc. from the start. Where the US could still take an early licking and retain the ability to produce ships or expand capacity without relatively short range missiles bearing down on key infrastructure.
ReplyDelete"without relatively short range missiles bearing down on key infrastructure."
DeleteIf I were China, given the open US border, I'd infiltrate (meaning walk across in broad daylight) agents to sabotage the incredibly few shipyards we have. The easiest targets are the handful of drydocks and the giant lift cranes. See, "The Next Pearl Harbor - Shipyards"
Who needs missiles when one guy with a handful of C4 can incapacitate an entire shipyard?
The Bykov has been upgraded with an air defence module ala the LCS. An Army Tor SAM system has been chained to the helo deck, CIC integration is via field telephone.
ReplyDeletehttps://en.defence-ua.com/analysis/project_22160_vasily_bykov_cannot_carry_nor_launch_kalibr_missiles_and_that_is_why-8261.html
So the Russians worked out that the ships were duds and stopped building them.
ReplyDeleteYou gotta credit them for that anyway.
Yes! The US, on the other hand, rode the LCS all the way to the bitter end rather than cancel an obvious disaster.
DeleteI thought you were supposed to early retire ships like that while also continuing to build new ones?
DeleteLutefisk
It’s a recycling thing - closed loop - no waste. That’s the beauty of aluminum.
DeleteIts the beauty of steel too.
DeleteYes that’s true in theory but the economics are different. Unlike the case with steel, about 75% of the aluminum that’s ever been produced is still being used, and an aluminum beer can is often recycled straight back into another beer can. A retired LCS can also be recycled straight into a new LCS thereby saving 80% of the energy that would otherwise be needed to build it from scratch using virgin aluminum.
DeleteWhat a win!