tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post2050638493958073157..comments2024-03-28T07:56:09.239-07:00Comments on Navy Matters: Cracking the LineComNavOpshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comBlogger62125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-69328069997746622692016-07-28T08:05:56.878-07:002016-07-28T08:05:56.878-07:00"What's your take on DARPA's unmanned..."What's your take on DARPA's unmanned sub chaser Sea Hunter?"<br /><br />This is possibly the most overhyped item to come out of DARPA. If full size, high power sonars on Burkes and long towed arrays and fleets of sonobuoy/dipping helos can't find and track enemy subs, how does anyone think a small unmanned vessel with a low power sonar (haven't seen any specs on it) and, apparently, no tail or sonobuoys, going to find and continuously track subs? That defies logic.<br /><br />Or, conversely, if the tiny sonar on the DARPA vessel is that miraculous, why aren't we engaged in a frantic program to fit it on all our ships?<br /><br />This is where sixty seconds of logical thought tells you what you need to know and that's what I try to provide to my readers - that calm, logical analysis unaffected by media hype.<br /><br />So, what do I think of it? It's probably extremely borderline in effectiveness (I'm being generous - it's not that good) but it might be useful for patrolling US harbors as part of a layered harbor defense or it might be useful in a navigational chokepoint where it would act like a long endurance, mobile sonobuoy.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-49221400816729801832016-07-27T17:47:17.085-07:002016-07-27T17:47:17.085-07:00What's your take on DARPA's unmanned sub c...What's your take on DARPA's unmanned sub chaser Sea Hunter?Fighting Irishhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03062665701910071556noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-50625191444691313552016-07-27T12:50:25.111-07:002016-07-27T12:50:25.111-07:00!!!!!!!!TrThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07316335177828136131noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-53814142432693721242016-07-27T12:23:07.696-07:002016-07-27T12:23:07.696-07:00"So SSBNs announce to the world there departu..."So SSBNs announce to the world there departure and arrival?"<br /><br />Well, yeah. At least in the US, SSBN departures are arrivals are well publicized and well celebrated. The subs don't submerge until out to sea in sufficiently deep water. Families often line the shore to see the subs off. We document arrivals and departures on Facebook, journals, blogs, etc. <br /><br />It doesn't matter if another country knows when they come and go. It only matters whether they can find and track them at sea and, if the Navy is to be believed, they can't.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-47671797212851301292016-07-27T10:28:56.331-07:002016-07-27T10:28:56.331-07:00"Obviously you discount any possibility of su..."Obviously you discount any possibility of surface ship employment too;"<br />Surface ships are faster and can shoot back.<br />Submarines only defence is stealth, and SSKs do not have that at all.<br /><br />"Finally: the statement: " You need to submerge in a concrete roofed sub pen..." is fantasy."<br />So SSBNs announce to the world there departure and arrival?<br />Because I'm pretty sure they depart under water and remain submerged until they have ported.TrTnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-57339825418237132342016-07-26T15:53:01.441-07:002016-07-26T15:53:01.441-07:00I'm all for an unmanned warship but it has to ...I'm all for an unmanned warship but it has to be survivable to do its job. If it could submerge, it would be completely survivable but we already have that - it's the SSGN.<br /><br />Think about a way to make this thing survivable and able to penetrate 200-300 miles of an A2/AD zone and then you'll have a viable concept.<br /><br />Turn the concept around to test it. Would we be threatened by a non-stealthy (or semi-stealthy), defenseless, unmanned ship? Or, would our satellites, P-8s, AWACS, OTH radars, subs, ships, and aircraft see these coming a long way off and casually sink them before they could reach a point several hundred miles off our coast?ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-74657707991103995932016-07-26T15:08:07.854-07:002016-07-26T15:08:07.854-07:00Thank you for the discussion!Thank you for the discussion!Fighting Irishhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03062665701910071556noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-36345482497463580542016-07-26T15:07:17.875-07:002016-07-26T15:07:17.875-07:00At some point, I'm sure someone said the same ...At some point, I'm sure someone said the same about the airplane. <br /><br />We have unmanned aircraft that can fire, for the time being, short range missiles. And, as you well know, contemplated unmanned strike aircraft for our carrier fleet.<br /><br />I thinks it's only a matter of time before we have unmanned warships. Fighting Irishhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03062665701910071556noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-10920145898997610082016-07-26T13:49:58.044-07:002016-07-26T13:49:58.044-07:00If they're part of a group then they'll be...If they're part of a group then they'll be closely watched and the moment they separate they'll be fish food.<br /><br />I think this is one of those ideas that isn't bad but that has no viable concept of operations.<br /><br />Still, a worthwhile discussion. Thanks.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-44308956940206725782016-07-26T12:55:23.358-07:002016-07-26T12:55:23.358-07:00You used the term first.
Maybe they are part of...You used the term first. <br /><br />Maybe they are part of a CSG or SAG, then disperse and approach close enough to shore to launch their missiles. Then return to the protection of a CSG or SAG or they directly head back to friendly port. <br /><br />As for defensive weapons, I'd mount a single SeaRAM launcher. I'm not sure about defense against torpedoes. Though if it was fast enough, it maybe be possible to out run one. Fighting Irishhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03062665701910071556noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-5021948021075706182016-07-26T11:45:42.966-07:002016-07-26T11:45:42.966-07:00Your scenario assumes that the majority of these l...Your scenario assumes that the majority of these little shooters (sounds like a drink I had in the bar the other night!) can survive long enough to reach a launch point or can survive while cruising around to cause enemy forces to disperse. I keep asking, how will these defenseless ships survive long enough to reach their launch points. Cause, if they can't, it doesn't matter how cheap they are or how many missiles they carry or anything else.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-69673972176467124382016-07-26T11:35:10.110-07:002016-07-26T11:35:10.110-07:00I know it's a play on numbers, but let's s...I know it's a play on numbers, but let's say these "little" vessels cost $150 million each and carry only 16 VLS cells. The loss of a few fully loaded ships would be more acceptable. For the cost of a single SSGN, using your numbers we could have a fleet of 16 "little" vessels that could launch an attack from multiple directions. <br /><br />Knowing there are a number of "little" shooters out there could also force an enemy to disperse their forces to better find these ships.<br /><br />Compared to the SSG suggested above, we could have 4 (maybe 5) "little" shooters for the cost of a single SSG. Fighting Irishhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03062665701910071556noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-16820084574683696382016-07-26T09:47:00.690-07:002016-07-26T09:47:00.690-07:00Whoa! You're being a bit cavalier about losin...Whoa! You're being a bit cavalier about losing these. An SSGN would cost around $2.5B. If I'm right and the cost of these "little" vessels is $500M, that's 20% of the cost of an SSGN. In terms of loadout, you'd need five of these things (at 32 cells per) to equal the load of one SSGN. Five times $500M = $2.5B which is exactly the cost of an SSGN.<br /><br />Now consider the cost of the missiles. Each Tomahawk is around $2M so 32 missiles costs $64M. I'm not quite so casual about tossing away $64M worth of weapons along with a $500M vessel, as you appear to be!! <br /><br />Finally, there's inventory. Best estimates have us with a Tomahawk inventory of around 3000. Each 32 Tomahawk vessel that casually toss away represents 2% of an inventory that we can't easily and quickly replace.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-62087431722309468242016-07-26T09:35:25.966-07:002016-07-26T09:35:25.966-07:00While it might carry 25-40% missile load of a SSGN...While it might carry 25-40% missile load of a SSGN, it would do at a fraction (about 10%) of the cost of a SSGN. So what if you lose a few. How much do bombers and fighters cost?Fighting Irishhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03062665701910071556noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-12566148832053550202016-07-26T08:02:54.784-07:002016-07-26T08:02:54.784-07:00"What about an autonomous or remotely control..."What about an autonomous or remotely controlled ship of modest size carrying 32 to 64 VLS cells?<br /><br />It would probably have a helicopter pad ...<br /><br />It could be shaped to be stealthy to avoid detection like the Zumwalt class. <br /><br />Being small in size they could approach land closer to strike targets further inland.<br /><br />$100 to $150 million a copy."<br /><br />A helo deck to accommodate a standard H-60 helo would be about 70 feet long. A 32-64 VLS cell would require around 60 feet. Throw in a bridge for optional manning, refueling space, deck equipment, engine room (below the flight deck, presumably), comm gear, sensors (navigational radar at the very least), etc. and you're looking at a 150-170 ft vessel - not huge but not tiny, either. Again, the main question is survivability. Stealth is not magic. If found, it would be a defenseless, automatic sink. <br /><br />This is a poor man's version of an SSGN but without the inherent stealth and survivability of the sub and with only 25%-40% of the SSGN's missile load.<br /><br />It's an interesting idea but the mission could be accomplished much better with an SSGN. Of course, if we could build one of these for the $100M or so that you envision, it might be worthwhile. My guess is that such a vessel would cost $500M. ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-11829684891491252202016-07-26T07:51:31.958-07:002016-07-26T07:51:31.958-07:00Walter, you're being exactly the kind of reade...Walter, you're being exactly the kind of reader I like about this. You've offered a proposal and you're examining it to see if it's realistic. Great!<br /><br />The one remaining area that you haven't addressed is detectability/survivability which ties into a concept of operations. You mentioned penetrating to 800-900 miles. That's still 100-200 miles inside the Chinese A2/AD zone - and would probably need to be a bit closer to allow for waypoints as opposed to a straight line flight. So, probably need to penetrate 200-300 miles to launch. How does a non-stealthy, easily detected vessel with no AAW survive to reach its launch point? Considering the larger picture, that's why we have Burkes carrying Tomahawks - they can fight their way in to a launch point and have a chance of surviving to launch. These JHSVs would basically be floating targets!<br /><br />You also mentioned having a carrier between the JHSV and the enemy. If we could get a carrier in that position, we wouldn't need the JHSV and its 16 (or 24) missiles - the carrier's Burkes could launch their Tomahawks.<br /><br />Any thoughts?ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-77724612046645162422016-07-26T06:24:53.851-07:002016-07-26T06:24:53.851-07:00What about an autonomous or remotely controlled sh...What about an autonomous or remotely controlled ship of modest size carrying 32 to 64 VLS cells? DARPA's is developing an autonomous sub chaser through its ACTUV program. <br /><br />Why not scale it up to a platform that can launch a strike? Gone are the manning requirements, though the ship would designed to be crewed when necessary, say for entering and exiting port and maintenance at sea. Obviously, the ship would be designed to be refueled at sea. <br /><br />It would probably have a helicopter pad to transfer crew when needed with equipment to at least refuel a helicopter. It could be shaped to be stealthy to avoid detection like the Zumwalt class. <br /><br />In operation, they could operate by themselves or as part of a CSG or SAG. Being small in size they could approach land closer to strike targets further inland.<br /><br />I would approach this from a cost perspective and see what could be built for $100 to $150 million a copy.<br />Fighting Irishhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03062665701910071556noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-27281395659576303602016-07-25T18:49:07.037-07:002016-07-25T18:49:07.037-07:00"The Navy talks about distributed lethality a..."The Navy talks about distributed lethality and a lightweight cruise missile launcher that can be mounted to almost any ship would help."<br /><br />++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++<br /><br />That would be the MK41 VLS, which comes in units as small as a single tube, but more typically eight cells.<br /><br />Do not fart bout with warships, put them in a commercial hull, likely a container ship. and call it done.<br /><br />GABAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-26701081215235015002016-07-25T18:37:43.001-07:002016-07-25T18:37:43.001-07:00"Nope, I'm just discounting one as irrele..."Nope, I'm just discounting one as irrelevant."<br /><br />++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++<br /><br />Obviously you discount any possibility of surface ship employment too; not to mention the extreme level of resources necessary to maintain the surveillance level you posit (without satellites).<br /><br />The North Sea, Arctic Ocean, Mediterranean Sea, Persian Gulf/NAS are all operation areas suited for an SSK.<br /><br />Finally: the statement: " You need to submerge in a concrete roofed sub pen..." is fantasy.<br /><br />GAB<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-1114270459190053742016-07-25T17:53:18.027-07:002016-07-25T17:53:18.027-07:00CNO, My ego doesn't bruise easily. That said,...CNO, My ego doesn't bruise easily. That said, I appreciate the feedback and the give and take. <br /><br />But, I think there is some utility in the EPF, or maybe the LCS, as a temporary special weapons platform.<br /><br />For starters, remove the armor from the ABL's, that ought to save a third or more in weight. After all, it's on a ship that is lightly armored itself. That would allow an EPF to launch a salvo of 24 missiles, instead of 16. <br /><br />A lightweight launcher, ideally reloadable, shouldn't be too difficult to field. A while back, there was a Russian company offering Club-S missiles firing out of a standard shipping container. <br /><br />The Navy talks about distributed lethality and a lightweight cruise missile launcher that can be mounted to almost any ship would help.Fighting Irishhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03062665701910071556noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-58983382153612858922016-07-25T15:19:48.649-07:002016-07-25T15:19:48.649-07:00If nothing else, it would be useful for increasing...If nothing else, it would be useful for increasing the Strategic mobility of the SSK, allowing them to make a higher speed submerged transit to the battle area without expending their onboard fuel supply in route. I see 3 or 4 SSKs operating with a single SSN. The SSN would maintain a secure area at the edge of the conflict after arrival providing rest and recharge for the SSKs.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-13388886738154716802016-07-25T11:05:48.724-07:002016-07-25T11:05:48.724-07:00Concept: 'MRE' the box-launchers with towe...Concept: 'MRE' the box-launchers with towed-launcher-barges. <br /><br />In peace time, the barges stay in port, with the box-lunch stowed on land and safe-keep.<br /><br />Run up to war time, load up the box lunches and prepare to sail.<br /><br />Real war time, convoy (with max.protection)the towed (or self propelled) barges to just beyond the A2/AD zone. If China stands down, reverse the procedure.<br /><br />I'm still having trouble accepting the math of $2.6B subs shooting off $30M ($2M x 16) worth of Tomahawk, which is an one-off launch and could be nulled by 2x amount of anti-air missiles and repair facility and follow on ASW reprisal.Timnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-16078789821650964942016-07-24T12:23:59.605-07:002016-07-24T12:23:59.605-07:00Even with what we've discussed, there are stil...Even with what we've discussed, there are still constraints to your concept that we've glossed over. The ample provisions hand-wave, for example, is a lot more limiting than you initially suggested. Simply having space is not good enough. Unless the crew is going to eat nothing but MRE's for the entire deployment, we'll need greatly expanded foor storage, cold storage, water storage, galley space, etc.<br /><br />The extra weapons will require additional crew to operate and maintain them. Those added crew members will need added berthing space, showers, heads, laundry, mess space, etc.<br /><br />The added weapons will need more electricity which likely means more or bigger power generating motors which, again, means a few more crew which, again, means still more berthing and what not.<br /><br />Adding CIWS? More space, more crew, more power, more ammo storage, etc.<br /><br />All of this is going to require more maintenance, more repair shops, more spare parts storage, etc.<br /><br />Hopefully, you see that just sprinkling weapons over any available deck space is completely unrealistic. As I said, this has been a great exercise in making more realistic assessments and coming up with better concepts.<br /><br />Thanks for you help with this!ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-83259081279371318552016-07-24T12:16:33.520-07:002016-07-24T12:16:33.520-07:00By the way, I get these kinds of emails from reade...By the way, I get these kinds of emails from readers all the time. Someone wants to put a 16" battleship gun on an LCS because they see that there is enough deck space available. They don't consider weight margins, stability, magazine volume, hull structural strength, and a hundred other factors, each of which render the concept completely invalid.<br /><br />Recall your original pass at this which envisioned a dozen or so launchers (48 missiles) with an equal amount instantly ready in some sort of storage area. Compare that to where the concept is now after we've applied just a tiny bit of actual engineering thought.<br /><br />I'm not belittling your concept, at all, but you can, hopefully, see how the physical and engineering realities begin to quickly limit the more fanciful concepts. I invited you to go through this exercise because it's instructive to all of us.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-39748208514857330582016-07-24T12:10:20.445-07:002016-07-24T12:10:20.445-07:00Let's sum up where the conceptual design is at...Let's sum up where the conceptual design is at.<br /><br />- 16 Tomahawks in 4x4 armored box launchers<br />- no flight deck and no helo <br />- non-stealthy, easily detected<br />- no AAW capability beyond 1-2 CIWS<br />- limited sea keeping; DOT&E noted that JHSV was severely impacted by inclement weather<br /><br />Reloads (for sake of discussion, let's say we could come up with a mechanism) would require magazines, weapons elevators of some sort, and some type of crane/rails system to maneuver them into place. We'll set aside the space requirements - meaning that we need free space at least equal to the length of the launcher either in front of or behind the launcher to conduct the reload - that's going to markedly impact our placement and, possibly, number of launchers.<br /><br />So, the question is whether the ability to launch a salvo of 16 missiles warrants the construction, cost, manning, and extreme risk of such a modified JHSV? Remember that reloads, if feasible, will be very time consuming unless you also envision some sort of automated below deck reload system which would drastically eat into the available space and weight margins and, frankly, begins to move into the pure fantasy realm!<br /><br />So, is all that worth it for 16 missiles?ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.com