tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post7304684772411455012..comments2024-03-28T07:56:09.239-07:00Comments on Navy Matters: Do The Math - Follow UpComNavOpshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comBlogger49125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-84715947719232677962018-08-14T12:34:59.847-07:002018-08-14T12:34:59.847-07:00"I disagree that the only number that matters..."I disagree that the only number that matters is total battle group capacity."<br /><br />I agree with your disagreement! I also don't think I said, explicitly, that total battle group missile numbers was the only thing that mattered. You've correctly identified that the AVAILABLE missiles on the threat axis is what matters. If the enemy can overwhelm the threat axis before the battle group can shift escorts in support then the group's high value units would, indeed, be sunk even though several escorts might remain undamaged and with full missile loads.<br /><br />Having acknowledged the theoretical possibility, let's look at the practical reality. For an escort group of, say, 20 ships, let's say that one quarter are on the threat axis so, 5 ships. We previously calculated that each escort has 50 Standards and 120 ESSM for a total of 170 missiles per ship. For our five ships on the threat axis, that's a total of 850 defensive missiles. Again, we're left with the question, is there any reasonable scenario in which an enemy can muster 850 missiles, simultaneously, against a single threat axis? Again, this includes the post's caveats. Still, that just doesn't seem realistic. <br /><br />Now, an enemy might, with repeated aircraft sorties, muster many hundreds of anti-ship cruise missiles over multiple days but that would also give the defending group ample time to rearrange its escorts to balance out the defensive missile expenditures.<br /><br />Does that make sense to you?ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-4503647554791113262018-08-14T10:54:15.085-07:002018-08-14T10:54:15.085-07:00There are some very good crane designs available. ...There are some very good crane designs available. Many for the offshore oil industry.<br /><br />This crane handles 420 tons very precisely.<br /><br />https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9S1IDxgdbA4&t=1599s<br /><br />I agree with CNO that battle-space reloads are not necessary. However, I disagree that the only number that matters is total battle group capacity. I suspect that missile attrition is going to be far from even, perhaps deliberately. So in a battle group 40-100 miles in diameter you obviously need to have enough missiles on the attack axis. Planning is going to be tricky. The ability to redistribute available stocks in a somewhat forward area might well be valuable.Georgehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17731178888696691472noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-30931505035310577902018-08-09T06:39:35.278-07:002018-08-09T06:39:35.278-07:00Total inventory, depending on which specific missi...Total inventory, depending on which specific missile, is on the order of 3000-5000 each so, nope.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-26083946263163062892018-08-08T21:45:26.213-07:002018-08-08T21:45:26.213-07:00Does the navy even have thousands of extra missile...Does the navy even have thousands of extra missiles in storage to be reloaded?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-38933694827474342522018-08-08T13:56:53.058-07:002018-08-08T13:56:53.058-07:00"offensive"
Now that has some potential..."offensive"<br /><br />Now that has some potential merit. Of course, we have SSGNs that have 150+ cruise missiles, superb stealth, unlimited range and endurance, etc. Still, a cruise missile barge could prove useful. Interesting!ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-22568819977747142902018-08-08T13:18:06.659-07:002018-08-08T13:18:06.659-07:00Actually, I thought of the idea of a missile barge...Actually, I thought of the idea of a missile barge as a way to boost offensive missile capacity. Assuming a heavy load out of anti air missiles for defense, it struck me as a simple way to boost offensive capacity in a group that seems lacking for example in firepower. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-68049440987411123022018-08-07T09:31:42.085-07:002018-08-07T09:31:42.085-07:00"If a ship has been through a fight, how like..."If a ship has been through a fight, how likely is it that the only thing it needs is to reload SAMs?"<br /><br />Outstanding comment and right on the money! A salute to you!ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-56814559794153939292018-08-07T08:04:09.703-07:002018-08-07T08:04:09.703-07:00If a ship has been through a fight, how likely is ...If a ship has been through a fight, how likely is it that the only thing it needs is to reload SAMs? I would expect it to need to reload chaff, fuel and perform repairs to equipment exposed to shock, other damage, or just stuff that stopped working. I don't see that focusing exclusively on VLS reloads is sufficiently broad to meet the needs to sustain high intensity combat operations.<br /><br />Jay Kayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07162380848814642382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-32405858217921291672018-08-07T06:03:07.316-07:002018-08-07T06:03:07.316-07:00A very good point about reloads in port. When I t...A very good point about reloads in port. When I think about some of the hurried reload/resupply efforts in port in WWII, you're probably right that our current efforts don't really support wartime capabilities.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-88261228935589224382018-08-07T05:55:01.747-07:002018-08-07T05:55:01.747-07:00Glad you're enjoying the blog. I'll keep ...Glad you're enjoying the blog. I'll keep trying to generate interesting, relevant work!<br /><br />There's nothing wrong with a small missile barge operating with a Burke other than the fact that it's not needed. We just discussed the impossibility of actually depleting the ship's inventory so what purpose would extra missiles serve? I guess what I'm asking is, what problem are you trying to solve with a missile barge?ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-64089245402803259572018-08-07T05:04:05.193-07:002018-08-07T05:04:05.193-07:00The Navy has never seriously considered VLS Reload...The Navy has never seriously considered VLS Reloading at sea. Honestly, they aren't even serious about expedient reloading in port. Reloads at NWS Yorktown were always a time intensive endeavor which I've never understood. You would think it would at least emulate container onloads at most ports, but they don't even use gantry cranes to move the missiles.Jay Nixhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05031750833658933314noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-3454489329810110402018-08-07T04:08:57.632-07:002018-08-07T04:08:57.632-07:00Hi CNO, have to say that the topics you've bee...Hi CNO, have to say that the topics you've been addressing of late, and the conversations I've seen in your comments have been really impressive. I truly hope those who can and will influence the USN in the future are listening.<br />I'd never thought through the concept of depletion of stocks, but your analysis certainly makes it seem less of a threat. I guess my real worry is that the Navy doesn't appear to have sufficient missile inventory to replace all the exhausted magazines from one of these theoretical engagements to begin with.<br />An idea I keep coming back to though, is tied to the arsenal ship. You have pointed out in the past, the risk of concentrating so much of our missile inventory in one vessel. Why not more numerous, un-crewed, "missile barges" slaved to the Burkes in the task group. I imagine a relatively simple hull, following each Burke, with capacity for a MK 41 VLS or two, and relatively little else. Without a crew, the vessels would not need more than sufficient size for the VLS, and sufficient fuel capacity to keep up with the task group. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-38570921403715965552018-08-06T19:17:16.545-07:002018-08-06T19:17:16.545-07:00What to call it? Armed Unmanned Surface Escort (AU...What to call it? Armed Unmanned Surface Escort (AUSE)<br /><br />Assumptions:<br />Speed and endurance typical of a carrier escort.<br />Fourty-eight to 64 VLS cells.<br />One to two Phalanx CIWS and decoys.<br />Passive electronics to detect aircraft and ships.<br />Zummwalt-like superstructure for lower RCS.<br />Helipad and limited crew quarters for at-sea maintenance and repairs.<br /><br />Scenarios<br />1. Carrier operations - One or two AUSE operating ahead of a carrier group along the most likely threat axis. They act either separately or together. In some cases, they might play zone defense to cover multiple threat axes. They operate at the forward edge of SAM range passively detecting signals from ship's and aircraft. If equipped with sonar, they could look for submarines. It is a modern picket ship, but armed with SAM, SSM, and ASW weapons and being unmanned no crew would be lost. Operating away from the main force, they could engage targets from a different bearing and, in some cases sooner, than a missile from the main force. This would also allow the main force to reserve their weapons. <br /><br />2. Surface Action Group - Similar operation to a carrier group, but with more LASRM and some Tomahawks. The Surface Action Group is assigned to attack key land targets (e.g. radar sites, SAM launchers, and command and control sites). A few AUSE, each armed with 24 LRASM and Tomahawks, are assigned to the group. They maneuver forward and closer to shore than the main group and launch a first wave attack, with a follow-on attack from the group. Or, they conduct a larger simultaneous attack from multiple positions.<br /><br />In short, think of a larger and armed version of Sea Hunter. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-40010249918086260302018-08-06T17:41:13.240-07:002018-08-06T17:41:13.240-07:00Why not just drown the drones? Small drones (cons...Why not just drown the drones? Small drones (consumer sized) would have little chance against high volume water jets. The ships could have a series of high pressure, high flow rate, automated water turrets that could be trained on any approaching drone. The mass of water would easily overcome any lift capabilities of small drones and would likely just destroy them. Larger drones (cruise missiles) would need an ESSM or similar.michael woltmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16719963700565405955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-58810156234235808792018-08-06T16:51:03.981-07:002018-08-06T16:51:03.981-07:00"the space that the Mak 26 launcher and a 44-..."the space that the Mak 26 launcher and a 44-round magazine took up is filled with 64 VLS cells."<br /><br />You're making statements that are not common knowledge. It's not at all clear to me that the Mk41 fits into teh exact same space the Mk26 system did. Do you have actual cu.ft. volume numbers to compare or are you just making a statement about the above deck, visible portion? Did the 64 cell VLS take up the same space or did it expand the internal volume? What were the Mk26 magazine dimensions versus the Mk41 VLS? If you've got that information, please share it. If not, don't make the statement or make it more precisely.<br /><br />"The Australian Perrys could potentially have fitted a bigger VLS array in the front"<br /><br />My understanding is that they tried very hard to fit more VLS and were unable. Do you have documentation that the Perrys could have taken a larger VLS?ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-16101366917731003372018-08-06T16:35:51.797-07:002018-08-06T16:35:51.797-07:00Do note that on the ticonderogas, the space that t...Do note that on the ticonderogas, the space that the Mak 26 launcher and a 44-round magazine took up is filled with 64 VLS cells.<br /><br />The Australian Perrys could potentially have fitted a bigger VLS array in the front, but VLS comes in clusters of eight, at 32 cells is still a fairly good number. 8 cells quadpacked with ESSM gives you 32 missiles superior to SM-1.WIld Goosehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16911145032644199127noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-91954689124638924472018-08-06T14:12:37.387-07:002018-08-06T14:12:37.387-07:00It has 8 cells quad packed with ESSM. The mk 13 la...It has 8 cells quad packed with ESSM. The mk 13 launches sm-2 as well as harpoon. The upgrade certainly improved the ship performance against anti ship missiles.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-32292967194554555352018-08-06T09:47:21.097-07:002018-08-06T09:47:21.097-07:00Well, 80-100 miles ahead would leave it utterly de...Well, 80-100 miles ahead would leave it utterly defenseless. Admittedly, in a scaled down version you wouldn't lose that much but, even at best, you wouldn't be gaining much either. The only way such a missile barge could function is if the main force, with sensors, were radiating constantly which would give away their position. <br /><br />I might be able to concoct a very specific scenario where such a barge would be helpful but it would be such a limited set of circumstances that it just doesn't seem worth the effort to construct such a vessel.<br /><br />A more useful approach would be to build a pure AAW ship with no other functions. A Burke with everything that wasn't AAW stripped out: no flight deck, hangar, ASW, gun, command and control, BMD, or any of the other functions built into Burkes. Just AAW. It would be fairly cheap and accomplish the same purpose as a missile barge with much more usefulness.<br /><br />I get that you like the idea. Think about specific scenarios where you think it might be useful. Not a vague, generic, 'it could hang out ahead of a group and do something good', but a specific scenario that takes into account enemy forces and actions. <br /><br />If you can come up with a scenario, I'd love to hear it!ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-41063166330754898822018-08-06T09:37:56.482-07:002018-08-06T09:37:56.482-07:00Doing some research, it appears that you can gener...Doing some research, it appears that you can generate an EMP pulse by converting conventional explosives into microwave pulses (see https://www.quora.com/Are-we-anywhere-close-to-making-EMPs-without-nukes). If we took a fairly simple ship (an LCS?) and went 'old school' on the design and removed as much electronics as possible, massively hardened what was left and carried lots of spares in hardened containers, could we have a ship we a non-nuclear EMP weapon? That would be a massive game changer in the scenarios we were discussing.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-24142054417473746722018-08-06T09:24:16.711-07:002018-08-06T09:24:16.711-07:00Maybe arsenal ship is the wrong term to use. Inst...Maybe arsenal ship is the wrong term to use. Instead, say you had a more modest size ship with 48 to 64 VLS cells with a mix of SM, ESSM, LASRM, and ASROC. It could be double-hulled to be more resistant to mines and torpedoes. Such a ship, say 80 to 100 miles ahead of the main force, would give you the ability to hit targets further out and from a different direction. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-45520092119893232762018-08-06T08:20:03.932-07:002018-08-06T08:20:03.932-07:00I assume you're asking about the speed of load...I assume you're asking about the speed of loading missiles into the magazine? I don't know but it would be reasonable to assume it was faster just because the fit tolerances weren't an issue. Just speculation on my part.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-11236961973937371592018-08-06T08:18:18.869-07:002018-08-06T08:18:18.869-07:00"operate ahead (or to the flanks) of the main..."operate ahead (or to the flanks) of the main force "<br /><br />Putting an arsenal ship with a significant portion of the total inventory of missiles ahead or to the flanks is a really big risk! Remember, air is not the only threat. Subs and mines would love to take out an exposed arsenal ship.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-9876096560142529822018-08-06T07:35:14.684-07:002018-08-06T07:35:14.684-07:00Hi, You run a very informative blog.
Just wanted t...Hi, You run a very informative blog.<br />Just wanted to know whether the older style launchers (like Mk26 launcher on Kidd Class destroyer) before VLS launchers were faster to load or did they face the same difficulty?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-30570230624473144842018-08-06T06:54:24.184-07:002018-08-06T06:54:24.184-07:00An arsenal ship wasn't meant to have sensors a...An arsenal ship wasn't meant to have sensors and fire control equipment, though their electronics should be EMP hardened as much as possible. And, with today's technology, an arsenal ship could be unmanned and operate ahead (or to the flanks) of the main force to engage targets faster. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-28352410820583073912018-08-06T06:00:38.626-07:002018-08-06T06:00:38.626-07:00Well, assuming an EMP hit eliminates all sensors, ...Well, assuming an EMP hit eliminates all sensors, having a missile barge won't help because there's no sensors or fire control for them. Of course, we could add an Aegis system to the missile barge but then we've built a Burke!ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.com