tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post1452943802310360374..comments2024-03-28T07:56:09.239-07:00Comments on Navy Matters: Supertanker FrigateComNavOpshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comBlogger59125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-51302778186620928992018-01-03T11:07:18.586-08:002018-01-03T11:07:18.586-08:00This reminds me of something....
Project Habakkuk...This reminds me of something....<br /><br />Project Habakkuk. A plan by the British during the Second World War to construct an aircraft carrier out of pykrete (a mixture of wood pulp and ice) for use against German U-boats in the mid-Atlantic. Basically an unsinkable, and self repairing, aircraft carrier. Pycrete is 14 times stronger than ice, and stronger than concrete. If it gets damaged you can repair at sea using onboard supplies of word pulp and water. <br /><br />Freeze six feet of pycrete to the outside of a oil tanker, The outer layer would be thin sheet metal.<br />Replace the engines with nukes. Arm with missiles, drones, and railguns. Resupply by air. That would be pretty unsinkable and likely unstoppable ship. Even a direct missile, mine or torpedo strike would do very little - and that could be quickly repaired. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-89512969585281485772017-12-06T17:04:52.995-08:002017-12-06T17:04:52.995-08:00Self contained systems, that are specific tailored...Self contained systems, that are specific tailored. <br />Some only for air defence, others for ship to shore. Storm Shadowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10999164214935172607noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-22349565866156906792017-12-06T09:05:30.867-08:002017-12-06T09:05:30.867-08:00"bolt on weapons systems?"
Yes, with va..."bolt on weapons systems?"<br /><br />Yes, with varying degrees of difficulty and success. Even a bolt on system has to have some sort of sensor/targeting input. Sensor placement is a critical issue. You've almost described the Navy's attempt at the Ship Self Defense System wherein a single software fire control and sensor integration software program was intended to incorporate every Navy sensor and weapon so that any combination of sensor and weapon could work on any ship. The reality is that the attempt has met with mixed success and one of the major stumbling blocks has been sensor placement. As they got into the project, they realized that many sensors were not optimally placed and the system had significant coverage gaps.<br /><br />So, yes to bolt on but where do you put the sensor to achieve full 360 degree coverage? You can see that the simple concept of "bolt on" is beginning to become complicated.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-18596751015083823302017-12-06T08:58:12.993-08:002017-12-06T08:58:12.993-08:00Two things...
We can call a carrier a frigate but...Two things...<br /><br />We can call a carrier a frigate but we would just disagree about semantics.<br />The factors I discussed tend to bracket design for some type of efficiency with the biggest factor being money. <br />So I take my tanker and make it fast. But I've got a sunk cost with the upgrade. It's hard to make it go that fast and be cheap. So it's more expensive and big. So I want to get the most bang for my buck and put more weapons on it. That cost more money. At some point we decide it is too expensive so we reduce the size a bit and therefore reduce the size of the engines. We could go down that road until we have what? A destroyer. Or we could go big and end up with what? A carrier. Or we could make a carrier a super frigate but the trade off becomes a singular. We can buy a few of them but not a hundred. No matter how unsinkable something is, it can only be in one place at a time. <br />When we are done with the thought experiment there are a lot of things we could build that work, if we had an unlimited budget. But no one does. What we end up with is classes of ship that can be changed around a set of thresholds (manning, capability, capacity). onegunhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12311158898960800643noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-90292575875608379632017-12-06T08:52:30.915-08:002017-12-06T08:52:30.915-08:00ATACMS is GPS guided with fins for stabilization a...ATACMS is GPS guided with fins for stabilization and maneuvering. Because it is guided, it may be able to tolerate small disturbances from the movement of the ship without greatly affecting range. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-90231380282800591302017-12-06T08:51:10.186-08:002017-12-06T08:51:10.186-08:00The more I think about this, the more I like it, a...The more I think about this, the more I like it, at least for a study phase. <br /><br />The key point to me would be cost and effectiveness?. I like the idea of size lending 'armor' and with the Maersk ships even speed. But Could you add the weapons and sensors needed to make it a viable warship within a reasonable cost? <br /><br />I.E. could you even add VLS to these things without huge cost? Or a sensor just enough to launch the weapons you'd need? <br /><br />You could have a HUGE sonar array, but can you install it cheaply enough? I'd think quieting is out of the question so can the size of the array overcome the idea that the ship isn't ideal? <br /><br />And, of course, there is the 10K ton meth addict elephant in the room: <br /><br />Could we do all that with discipline as to capabilities and not get rogered by the vendors? JFWhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16095723023404412328noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-23196287842781636542017-12-06T08:42:16.463-08:002017-12-06T08:42:16.463-08:00I like the idea of armoring and up gunning for pre...I like the idea of armoring and up gunning for precisely those reasons. JFWhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16095723023404412328noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-72535430844328544172017-12-06T08:41:26.251-08:002017-12-06T08:41:26.251-08:00One thing I have wondered about is for low end shi...One thing I have wondered about is for low end ships can they make bolt on weapons systems? I know that the fire control is an issue, but (way) back in the day Sea Sparrow was a contained unit. <br /><br />And... from a software perspective if you have a bolt on box launcher, a smart seeker (Like ESSM) could you have a standard sensor to go with it that you could configure from ship to ship... I.E. if you know the sensors specs and they don't change, and you can input the hight of the sensor, the roll of the ship, etc.... you could conceivably make a 'bolt on' weapons system. Almost like CWIS is. <br /><br />Where I'm going with this is you could create a way to A) quickly modernize older ships with newer equipment if you can make the room, much like Sea Sparrow did, and B) it makes things like a Frigate'ized Supertanker or Container ship more viable on the cheap. <br /><br />I suppose it would be something like STANFLEX but I'm thinking more of using box launchers. JFWhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16095723023404412328noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-34576745643215246982017-12-06T06:36:45.351-08:002017-12-06T06:36:45.351-08:00Okay, those are factors but what is their impact?
...Okay, those are factors but what is their impact?<br /><br />For example, size vs speed. We can build very large vessels, both commercial and naval, that can make 30 kts so size does not necessarily mean slow speed. Further, speed may not be tactically useful. A frigate acting as escort for merchant ships doesn't need much speed.<br /><br />You've listed factors but not how they would act as limits. I get the impression that you're rejecting a tanker-frigate because it wouldn't be a carbon copy of a convention frigate. Well, it wouldn't! It would be different but might well be able to perform the mission - just differently. ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-64249692482047755452017-12-06T06:31:01.388-08:002017-12-06T06:31:01.388-08:00In concept, yes, one could quickly bolt on a weapo...In concept, yes, one could quickly bolt on a weapon system and integrate it with a fire control system, however, the reality is that weapon programs spend months or years integrating their systems with existing Navy ships and software. To think that we can cobble together a fully functioning fire control system overnight is heavy on the wishful thinking.<br /><br />Consider a MLRS (ATACMS) launcher on a ship. It is continually moving in all directions. Since the launcher is not gyroscopically stabilized (as far as I know), you would need some type of gyroscopic sensors to even be able to begin to calculate a firing solution. On land, you simply point the launcher and it stays, rock solid, where you point it. On a ship, it's constantly moving. You can't launch unless you can compensate by continually adjusting the launcher. I don't even know if the launcher has that kind of continual adjustment capability.<br /><br />So, yes it could be done but not quite as quickly or easily as you may be envisioning!ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-30763947544859451592017-12-06T06:23:46.292-08:002017-12-06T06:23:46.292-08:00Size vs. Speed
Size vs. Ability
Size vs. Cost of...Size vs. Speed<br /><br />Size vs. Ability<br /><br />Size vs. Cost of loadout<br /><br />Loadout vs. cost of protection<br /><br />Ability to place some of the loadout on the protectors.<br /><br />Cost vs. Number of hulls<br /><br />onegunhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12311158898960800643noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-61505244351539646132017-12-05T15:27:41.288-08:002017-12-05T15:27:41.288-08:00I was half joking when I said could you bolt on a ...I was half joking when I said could you bolt on a PATRIOT or THAAD system on board BUT you raise a good question, in a pinch, could some of these weapon systems just be bolted on real fast and rig some sort of fire control? It wouldn't be perfect but if we had nothing else, better something than nothing? Could you fire ATACMS from a supertanker? Don't see why not?<br /><br />Personally, I'm against up armoring or building extensive aviation centric modules on a supertanker, we already have carriers, amphibs,etc that have extensive aviation capability, I would be against anything more than a landing platform and rapidly deployed hangar on the deck. I think we should keep the costs down and up-armor and aviation are expensive. In my book, lets keep it cheap and simple....let's try things that are out of the box like the idea of the tanker being a mother ship to fleet of Cyclone. That's general ideas I think are right direction...my 2 cents.NICOhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14567491909555759918noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-6035274280016688192017-12-05T15:10:21.821-08:002017-12-05T15:10:21.821-08:00"But they are not, nor will they every be a f..."But they are not, nor will they every be a frigate or battle ship because of a variety of tactical realities."<br /><br />Interesting statement. What do you see as the "tactical realities" that impact the possible use of a tanker type vessel?ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-56917228506013891522017-12-05T12:51:09.361-08:002017-12-05T12:51:09.361-08:00You've answered your own question. When we fin...You've answered your own question. When we finish this thought experiment what we end up with is a navy that looks a lot like what we already have. <br />So when we are done making our super tanker a war wagon what will it look like? The U.S.S. Nimitz. <br />At that point it is much more logical to start the conversation on how we want to distribute our weapons in the form of which weapon, it's capacity and it's distribution on various hulls. There is a reason super tanker sized hulls that are armed become carriers. <br />Now, the navy has had a conversation on how to expand the use of it's larger supply ships. They have over the years used them for a variety of unique purposes. But they are not, nor will they every be a frigate or battle ship because of a variety of tactical realities. <br />One of the very important concept that sometimes are lacking in these thought experiments is the use of each ship during peace time and war time.<br /> onegunhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12311158898960800643noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-7169316603818724092017-12-05T12:15:41.618-08:002017-12-05T12:15:41.618-08:00And another thing that came to my mind.
What if ...And another thing that came to my mind. <br /><br />What if in a hurry the US needed to some sort militarize, for defensive purposes at least, civilian cargo vessels?<br /><br />What comes to mind first, bolt on systems, here as an example below is the Russian Tor SAM system being able to autonomously work on deck. Of course you could add the container version of the Klub missile. <br /><br />https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ObXk1BgRNGEStorm Shadowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10999164214935172607noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-51018978807504274002017-12-05T11:00:38.672-08:002017-12-05T11:00:38.672-08:00The most important thing with this is that you get...The most important thing with this is that you get.. numbers!<br /><br /> You have numerically more surface shooters dispersed around you covering a wider area while at the same time being protected under the Aegis umbrellas. <br />Other wise we have a huge sea fortress/arsenal ship that has one main disadvantage.. its just one unit, no matter how hard to sink.<br /><br />Imagine it like this, a tank needs a infantry squad around it to protect the tank form enemy infantry just as the squad needs the tank for fire support, they complement each other .<br /><br />About targeting, if the main mother vessel is damaged then you have the on board sensors on the small craft ( witch if at sea still remain afloat, for some time at least, still better than taking off form a carrier with you're planes only to come back seeing that you're carrier is sunk :D ) and of course "the network" <br /><br /><br />Its a carrier concept only this one does not launch airplanes but instead small missile craft around a littoral zone where you expect to encounter many Chinese missile craft and other vessels. <br /><br /> Storm Shadowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10999164214935172607noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-58721875070356925032017-12-05T09:52:00.104-08:002017-12-05T09:52:00.104-08:00"pic of a model of a small but heavily armed ..."pic of a model of a small but heavily armed craft"<br /><br />That's almost an exact replica of the Soviet/Russian Tarantul class missile boat - one of my favorite Soviet designs. The earlier Osa class missile boat is another example.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-82821507108002662542017-12-05T09:49:22.923-08:002017-12-05T09:49:22.923-08:00"Targeting you say, well that would be easy b..."Targeting you say, well that would be easy because having plenty of deck space would allow you to launch UAVs"<br /><br />Yes, I understand that the mothership could supply targeting data either directly from its own sensors or indirectly via UAVs. I was asking about the case you mentioned where the mothership is sunk or disabled but the missile boats continue to fight. Where do they get their targeting data from in that case? Targeting has always been the weakness in the distributed lethality concept, of which this concept is similar. <br /><br />Your idea is appealing but the targeting after the mothership is disabled needs to be addressed.<br /><br />I like the concept but I have to ask, while the mothership is operational, why do we need missile boats. For a large tanker-ish mothership, why not just give it an equivalent number of VLS cells as the missiles on the boats and let the mothership launch anti-ship missiles? In other words, what do the missile boats add to the force that the mothership couldn't do by itself? <br /><br />Don't get me wrong. I'm not trying to argue against the concept, just trying to explore the operating concept behind it.<br /><br />What do you think?ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-20658780085364604692017-12-05T09:11:00.625-08:002017-12-05T09:11:00.625-08:00About the craft them self a tailored smaller versi...About the craft them self a tailored smaller version Skjold-class corvette, comes to mind as a LO platform.<br /><br />And here is a pic of a model of a small but heavily armed craft, in that case with eight! Bramos missiles.<br /><br />https://i2.wp.com/defenceupdate.in/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/BrahMos_missile_boat.jpg?resize=827%2C372&ssl=1Storm Shadowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10999164214935172607noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-76810706953281099972017-12-05T09:04:45.642-08:002017-12-05T09:04:45.642-08:00 Well, a modern missile boat has a displacement of... Well, a modern missile boat has a displacement of around 200/250 tons, in that package you generally have <br />one 76mm gun, eight ASM missiles of any type and some sort of CIWS for self defense. <br /><br />So if were talking about this then a big mother ship could house maybe six or eight. <br /><br /> However if we use some tailor made fast attack craft with a displacement of less then 100 tons then we double the number. <br /><br /> Targeting you say, well that would be easy because having plenty of deck space would allow you to launch UAVs, and i mean serious vehicles not those small ones. <br /> Witch, oh could also be armed with say two missiles in the Penguin class/weight range . <br /><br />So there you have it, a ship with the size displacement of a super tanker could haul this much hitting power. Even if you loose the ship itself, the deployed craft would stay afloat and continue to fight another day. Storm Shadowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10999164214935172607noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-71518485413074915262017-12-05T08:58:35.360-08:002017-12-05T08:58:35.360-08:00Yeah, good point on that. I got carried away ther...Yeah, good point on that. I got carried away there with the lasers and rail gun and nuke to power them. hehUncle Maxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09201160092477098369noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-66449101302148682792017-12-05T08:23:28.038-08:002017-12-05T08:23:28.038-08:00Okay. One of these with 10 Cyclones hanging off th...Okay. One of these with 10 Cyclones hanging off the side... ;-)JFWhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16095723023404412328noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-60113590520641616242017-12-05T08:01:32.981-08:002017-12-05T08:01:32.981-08:00"its a cheaper way to handle it than building..."its a cheaper way to handle it than building an LCS."<br /><br />Yes, it would be. Of course, for simple presence/anti-pirate work, a $20M Cyclone would be just fine and we'd save even more money. Or, maybe a mothership and a small squadron of Cyclones.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-35274799099867408882017-12-05T07:58:12.482-08:002017-12-05T07:58:12.482-08:00I like motherships, in general - any type! Did yo...I like motherships, in general - any type! Did you have a specific missile boat in mind that would fit the size requirements?<br /><br />How would these missile boats get their targeting data?ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-28287338312580154622017-12-05T07:55:07.977-08:002017-12-05T07:55:07.977-08:00I like that idea alot.
I also wonder if we could...I like that idea alot. <br /><br />I also wonder if we could buy these used for the Navy's desire of a 'self deployable presence/ anti piracy' assett. <br /><br />Don't even do much to it. Maybe you want a Helo for patrolling for pirates. Maybe just drones. <br /><br />I've seen used prices for these ships at around $150 million, way cheaper than the LCS, and they are highly automated so they don't have a huge crew cost. <br /><br />Sure they aren't fast but for 'presence' missions I don't think they need to be. And they have gobs of range. If you use a bulk carrier now its a 'humanitarian' ship. <br /><br />Just off the top of my head. You have to accept the navy's arguments for that type of ship, but if you do, or in my case if you think the Navy will do it anyway, its a cheaper way to handle it than building an LCS. JFWhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16095723023404412328noreply@blogger.com