tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post5016711255117948472..comments2024-03-28T07:56:09.239-07:00Comments on Navy Matters: LCS - Naval Group Hug?ComNavOpshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comBlogger35125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-14360637550220119272013-07-21T18:50:41.686-07:002013-07-21T18:50:41.686-07:00Before you can piece together a ship, you must def...Before you can piece together a ship, you must define the mission it will primarily fill. This was the mistake with the LCS which, to this day, has no defined mission and is, therefore, an abject failure. Also, one of the principal characteristics of a frigate is affordability. The use of a Spruance hull, however good, is already starting to negate that characteristic. So many people today want to load tons of weapons on a ship and call it a frigate. True frigates are compromised ships, at best, whose primary asset is availability with only a marginal capability in any given warfare area. So, if you really want to design a frigate, think much smaller and simpler!ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-25000698704159187142013-07-21T14:04:26.968-07:002013-07-21T14:04:26.968-07:00Let's get back to an updated Spruance. Do we a...Let's get back to an updated Spruance. Do we all agree the size, survivability and the sea handling capabilities of the class are exceptional. What weapons systems would this over-sized frigate require? Anti-Air, surface & sub-surface, CIWS, Rollings, vertical launches, anti-sub ultra high speed torpedoes? Not a rail gun, not Aegis? Long range, moderate speed - 28 kts?, sensors.. the list goes on. Help! DUMP the LCS for God's sake! How about we buy the rights to the S. Korean frigate?!?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-70764187701795347142013-07-11T10:49:50.602-07:002013-07-11T10:49:50.602-07:00As I said
"This of course depend of the lea...As I said<br />"This of course depend of the lead ships proving themselves, and the Navy not trying to bury them as a mistake."<br /><br />We won't true know until the USS Zumswalt has had a year of operations, then all the bets made will come due.<br /><br />G Lofnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-81061548516660277472013-07-11T04:10:40.227-07:002013-07-11T04:10:40.227-07:00ComNavOps,
I understand your point about GDP comp...ComNavOps,<br /><br />I understand your point about GDP completely.<br /><br />My reposit is:<br /><br />1) It is more important that a country be willing to risk blood to defend itself than dollars. I am thinking specifically of some Middle Eastern countries. I would rather have a poor ally that will fight, than a rich ally who is non-committal (looking hard at some of our coalition partners in Afghanistan).<br /><br />2) I think trying to equate defense spending as a percentage of GDP when the discrepancy between GDP per capita is so great is meaningless. It is like trying to compare the bench press capability of a 125 lb man with a 125 pound woman (who has 30% less muscle mass). With a GDP per capita less than 1/10th that of the USA, clearly Filipinos need to be focused on their economy. If you have food in your stomach, you can afford to take a nickel out of every dollar. If you are hungry every day, it becomes very hard to think about doing much other than feeding yourself. Remember, the GDP per capita is ~$4,300.00 per person - could you live on that? And yes I understand that GDP per capita is not median income, but it is correlated.<br /><br />GAB<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-67715105728962456112013-07-10T17:33:12.350-07:002013-07-10T17:33:12.350-07:00G Lof, recognizing how much effort and dedication ...G Lof, recognizing how much effort and dedication the folks at BIW have put into building the three hulls of the Zumwalt Class, the reality of the situation is that we don't yet know if its radical stealth hullform will be stable in a variety of sea conditions; and we also don't yet know how well its low crew manning features will work in actual practice. <br /><br />Another potential problem is that in order for that larger suite of missions and roles to be properly covered, the crew might have to spend substantially more time on deck to work the ship than might otherwise be necessary if the Zumwalt class is held to its currently assigned missions.<br /><br />But the ship has a wave piercing bow, meaning that waves will flow along the deck from bow to stern, implying that submarine rules must be in force when the crew is on deck. How will deck operations be conducted in actual practice?<br /><br />It will be some time before the answers are in. If by 2020, the answers are in and the ship's automation features work as advertised; the ship is reasonably stable in a variety of sea conditions; and the issue of submarine rules being necessary on deck doesn't turn out to be a real problem, then I will be forced to eat two decades worth of snarky criticisms of DDG-1000's hullform and its overall design philosophy. <br /><br />However, I have this deep suspicion that things aren't going to go that way. Scott Brimnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-78920011238988730292013-07-10T11:57:30.473-07:002013-07-10T11:57:30.473-07:00Let us not forget the one option already out there...Let us not forget the one option already out there that often forgotten, the Zumswalt class. These ships were original intended to plain destroyers, not guild missile destroyers/ABM ships, but suffered from mission creep under the LWM. If those extra requirement were deleted and those extras removed, there is a good possibility we could reduce their live time cost to below that of a Burke class. <br /><br />Now I know at first this may seem dum, put with there smaller crew, automated hull, and electric based designs, it is quit possible.<br /><br />This of course depend of the lead ships proving them self, and the navy not tring to bury them as a mistake.G Lofnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-16148398793746118152013-07-10T11:04:57.333-07:002013-07-10T11:04:57.333-07:00ComNavOps, perhaps Nicky can correct me as far as ...ComNavOps, perhaps Nicky can correct me as far as his own perspectives as to what is meant by the term "AEGIS-less" Burke, but what is being spoken of here applies to new-build construction, not to legacy Burkes which are already afloat.<br /><br />As for just how the aggregated total lifecycle cost of the surface combatant fleet can be effectively managed, the first requirement is that any strategy one chooses must be practically workable; and the second requirement is that the strategy must actually go forward and be implemented according to some kind of rational plan -- a plan which is realistically funded and which has realistic, achievable goals.<br /><br />If I could be sure that the funding and the national commitment were there, I would build a new design using the best lessons learned from previous designs, one that had enough displacement to minimize the technical and operational risks of the embarked combat and sensor systems. Such a design might be 6,000 tons or so, and would be a seaframe type of design philosophy with realistic margins for growth. <br /><br />However ..... the USN has painted itself into a tight corner in not requesting the level of funding needed to properly cover the advanced technology and the number of hulls it wants to buy. These constraints have placed significant limitations on what can be done to manage the USN's force structure. In that context, there is every justification for looking at an AEGIS-less Burke or an updated Spruance design as one alternative to getting out of the corner the USN has painted itself into. <br /><br />When I say they that the USN should look at these options, I mean that they should take a realistic look at the mission areas they want to support, and then go from there in looking at what kinds of platforms might be useful in supporting those mission areas -- balancing those needs against an accurate estimate of the total lifecycle costs of a given platform versus how much deployable combat capability the platform carries relative to the mission needs. Scott Brimnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-46749989088750988052013-07-10T09:46:09.714-07:002013-07-10T09:46:09.714-07:00Scott, managing lifecycle costs wisely, relative t...Scott, managing lifecycle costs wisely, relative to capabilities is a laudable goal and one we should be actively examining on a continuous basis. That said, how is stripping equipment from existing Burkes going to accomplish that (along with generating a huge refit bill!)?<br /><br />I completely agree that the Spruance hull had loads of potential. It's a shame that the Navy got rid of them just so they wouldn't hinder the Aegis program.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-40058067283042467642013-07-10T09:32:38.754-07:002013-07-10T09:32:38.754-07:00ComNavOps, removing AEGIS from a Burke just to cal...ComNavOps, removing AEGIS from a Burke just to call it a frigate isn't the true objective. The true objective is to manage the total lifecycle costs of the surface combatant fleet relative to its total deployed combat capability, doing so in an intelligent way relative to the particular mix of mission priorities one chooses to service. <br /><br />This is the ultimate objective that Nicky is after, and it is also the objective that G Lof and myself are after. But everyone has their own way of approaching the problem, of course.<br /><br />G Lof, I have come to believe that you have a point about the Spruance design as being a good candidate for further serious study as a starting point for a maximum flexibility platform which could cover the FFG-7's current and past missions. <br /><br />Back in the middle part of the last decade, efforts were being made by those who realized that the LCS and the DDG-1000 acquisition programs were both highly problematic to convince the USN's senior leadership to retain some number of Spruances for just that kind of purpose -- but to no avail, naturally. Scott Brimnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-6493399631017498632013-07-10T07:43:24.229-07:002013-07-10T07:43:24.229-07:00Kurt, you state that from an outside perspective t...Kurt, you state that from an outside perspective the US is overspending and that there is no real peer enemy to justify that level of expenditure. China is outspending (in terms of buying power) the US on military by a wide margin. China is building new ships, aircraft, subs, missiles, etc. at a pace far beyond the US. China is already a peer competitor and, if trends continue, will become the military leader before long.<br /><br />I have to smile at your statement that Europe can easily handle Russia. You're aware, I assume, that Europe was unable to handle the recent Libyan problem, having run out of munitions and needing to be resupplied by the US? If Europe can't handle a small Libyan semi-conflict, how would they handle Russia (admittedly not what the Soviet Union once was in terms of military might!)?ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-284665837164131132013-07-10T07:34:59.272-07:002013-07-10T07:34:59.272-07:00Anon/GAB, you might be missing a couple of key poi...Anon/GAB, you might be missing a couple of key points. First, a percentage is independent of the total amount, meaning 2.5% of 1000 is the same relative amount as 2.5% of 10. The resulting total varies but the relative impact is the same. Second, per capita GDP is misleading because it doesn't take into account standard of living or services needed. For example, in the US we have an extensive system of interstate highways which means each citizen must pay for roads in all 50 states totalling hundreds of thousands of miles of roads. While I don't know the Philippine's transportation system, I'm sure their road system is nowhere near as complex or extensive on a relative basis. Similarly, the US maintains a complex and extensive commercial airline system that the Philippines does not have. So, the issue is not simply per capita GDP but, rather, the buying power of that GDP relative to needs.<br /><br />Percentage of GDP spent on defense tells us the priority placed on defense by a country. Looking at the world averages, it's clear that Philippines do not place a high priority on defense. From their perspective, why should they when the US will take care of them? <br /><br />Philippines is now seeing the result of depending on a weak-willed US. China is encroaching on Philippines territorial waters and the US is not reacting. That leaves the Philippines to try to defend their interests on their own and they don't have a military capable of doing so. It's time to step up or be absorbed by China.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-870904322291557022013-07-10T07:23:30.534-07:002013-07-10T07:23:30.534-07:00Kurt, the question whether it's a good design ...Kurt, the question whether it's a good design depends on what you want it to do. What did you have in mind?ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-24648011548821648302013-07-10T03:13:00.112-07:002013-07-10T03:13:00.112-07:00http://www.naval-technology.com/news/newsnorth-sea...http://www.naval-technology.com/news/newsnorth-sea-boats-launches-new-trimaran-warship-indonesian-navy<br /><br />The KRI Klewang is a good example how the streetfighter and LCS effort pay off. Is it a better design?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-14023346848790602392013-07-10T02:57:03.153-07:002013-07-10T02:57:03.153-07:00From a perspective outside of the US they are simp...From a perspective outside of the US they are simply overdoing it with 50% of global military expenditure. Convince the US to spend less and others will be more willing to put skin in the game or on the other hand have a real enemy that spends on compareable levels with the US.<br />Europe has a well balanced expenditure in military matters. They can easily handle Russia, the second biggest power on earth on all levels and at the same time intervene elsewhere if they commit to war and not just some half-hearted small scale intervention.<br />Arguably, the US could spend much less because they are without a peer and it's not obvious what benefits they derive from these military developments.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-2349955137552739752013-07-09T11:49:02.301-07:002013-07-09T11:49:02.301-07:00Scott, you're quite right that a wisely design...Scott, you're quite right that a wisely designed, new construction, non-Aegis Burke might make a good ship. Nicky's proposal, however, is to take existing Flt IIa's and strip them down to make a frigate. It would make no sense to take fully paid for Burkes and remove capability just to be able to call them frigates.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-10076548161785866092013-07-09T11:30:07.537-07:002013-07-09T11:30:07.537-07:00The Burke class hull is not a very good design. It...The Burke class hull is not a very good design. It was design specifically to mount AEGIS on as cheap a platform possible. That why they were originally design without hangers, with only 90 missiles, and only one 5in gun. <br /><br />The Spruance class on the other hand was design for maximum flexibility. Many different weapons, sensors, and other system could be mounted on their hull. That why we should go back to the Spruance basic design for a secondary escort vessel ( what Nicky thinks of as a frigate.) That for example the propulsion system. There is room on the Spruance for Hybri-drives like USS America. You can enlarge the helicopter hangers and still have room for 64 Standard missiles. You can use modern mast systems. <br /> G Lofnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-12863882566895556592013-07-09T09:28:04.786-07:002013-07-09T09:28:04.786-07:00There are several reasons why one would give serio...There are several reasons why one would give serious consideration to building an AEGIS-less Burke: <br /><br />-> We own the Burke design and have passed through the learning curve of how best to build that particular ship; i.e., the industrial base is already tuned up to build it. <br /><br />-> The hull has enough volume and displacement margin for handling larger unmanned systems, assuming the AEGIS gear is not present. <br /><br />-> The existing Burke Class maintenance and support infrastructure can be utilized. We don't need to create a new support infrastructure.<br /><br />-> In a Navy whose fleet numbers are in decline, and which have no where else to go but down under the current delusional shipbuilding strategy, the ability to upgrade the ship to AEGIS standards relatively quickly is a very useful feature to have if changing strategic considerations mean that the USN's force structure requirements must change. <br /><br />Norman Friedman has suggested that the option of an an AEGIS-less Burke ought to be a candidate for further serious study. And if they decided to call the ship the "LCS Flight II" for political reasons, who would I be to complain? Scott Brimnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-28043260362093171682013-07-09T08:02:04.736-07:002013-07-09T08:02:04.736-07:00What I think we really want to see from Filipinos ...What I think we really want to see from Filipinos and our allies is “skin in the game:” that Filipinos are willing to put Filipinos lives at risk for a common cause not simply rely on Americans to do the fighting and dying. One of the key arguments for the surge in Iraq was Petraeus’s argument that: the Iraqis were joining their security forces in increasing numbers, Iraqis were willing to fight, and the Iraqis security forces were suffering disproportionately higher casualties than the Coalition. In short, the Iraqis had “skin in the game,” without it, the entire debate changes. <br /><br />To put numbers to Kurt’s argument:<br /><br />USA GDP - per capita (PPP): $49,800 (2012 est.)<br /><br />Philippines GDP - per capita (PPP): $4,300 (2012 est.)<br /><br />While I agree that wealthy countries (Europe!) should indeed be contributing more of their GDP to defense instead of looking to Uncle Sugar; it is harder for Filipinos to spend more for defense, when a quarter of them are living under the poverty line. If the Philippine GDP – per capita were $10,000, I would expect substantially more defense spending as a percentage of GDP.<br /><br />We should be very leery of alliance with any country that is unwilling to put their people in harm’s way, regardless of how much money they contribute to defense. The Filipino people were certainly willing to fight the Japanese.<br /><br />GABAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-62393999433994034362013-07-09T02:40:44.390-07:002013-07-09T02:40:44.390-07:00GDP is the total amount of monetary values. Of the...GDP is the total amount of monetary values. Of the GDP, only a fraction is available for schools, hospiitals and military mattters. In the US this fraction of the GDP being available as disposeable income is much much higher than in the Philippines. 2.5% is the high European spending by great powers such as the UK or France. The global expenditure is shaped by resource rich countries like the OPEC club that buy weapons in order to have a satisfied non-democratic powerbase in the armed forces and do invest little into human development.<br />The Philippines is on spending par with Japan that has a similar security environment and in terms of percentage of disposeable income of GDP expenditure they outclass the US effort. Your demand is unfair and biased by simplistic use of statistics.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-73467894959172490962013-07-08T18:04:17.675-07:002013-07-08T18:04:17.675-07:00GLof, every country that has a coastline has some ...GLof, every country that has a coastline has some sort of navy. Sure, we interact with landbound countries but they don't apply within the context of this post. I think I'm missing your point. Want to try again?ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-80035364816420564022013-07-08T17:52:53.838-07:002013-07-08T17:52:53.838-07:00Nicky, unless I'm misunderstanding you, you wa...Nicky, unless I'm misunderstanding you, you want to take existing Burke IIA's and turn them into less capable frigates? The ships are already paid for so there's no cost savings. They'd just be less capable. What's the benefit? Carrying a single platoon? You want to lose the capabilities of a Burke to gain a platoon? I'm really missing the point of this one.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-81598538037824921872013-07-08T15:43:16.366-07:002013-07-08T15:43:16.366-07:00ConNavOps, why do you assume that the US will only...ConNavOps, why do you assume that the US will only have to interface with countries with a navy? If a country has any coast line, then it has a littoral, and a territory. Some day in the future these might become critical to the US, so developing relationship between all these nation, not just major ones must be done.<br /><br />I know there are other types of ships the US has that can accomplish this, some Coast Guard vessel are will suited to this mission type, but they don't have the range to make calls to nations on the other side of the world. G Lofnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-521862376474955732013-07-08T12:07:58.163-07:002013-07-08T12:07:58.163-07:00Agree strongly with your point about the Philippin...Agree strongly with your point about the Philippines needing to take some responsibility for their own defense! You'd think they'd be especially keen on having a well-rounded navy given they're an island archipelago. But when does that country take responsibility for anything?JInoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-20096768657990085622013-07-08T09:05:52.052-07:002013-07-08T09:05:52.052-07:00You would take the concepts from the Álvaro de Baz...You would take the concepts from the Álvaro de Bazán-class frigate, and it's subclass the Fridtjof Nansen-class frigate and the Hobart-class destroyer. You then apply them to the current Burke hulls to build an Aegis-less Frigate based upon the Burke Hull. We did it before with the Spruance class DD's, from which their hulls became the Tico's CG's. We can do it with the current stock of Burke Flight IIA hulls and make them into Frigates. It would give us room for future growth and capacity to carry a Marine Rifle Platoon on MEU(SOC) missions, Anti Piracy and VBSS missions. The benefit their is you have Burke Frigates that can be upgraded to DDG if need be and they already pack the firepower of a DDG into a Frigate.Nickyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15318590507921043958noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-6463893256267375962013-07-08T07:20:15.476-07:002013-07-08T07:20:15.476-07:00Kurt, GDP is a term you seem not familiar with. I...Kurt, GDP is a term you seem not familiar with. In simplified terms, GDP is the amount of money a country produces. Countries spend that money to provide products and services for their people. One of those services is national defense. The world average for national defense is 2.5% of GDP. Philippines is spending 0.8% on defense - less than a third of the average country. It's time to step up and take more responsibility!ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.com