exported_kiwi
New Member
If Oz and NZ want all of that and the tonnage creeps north towards 7000T, then why not simply buy the Burkes and get it over with? Off topic, sorry but the question begged to be asked.
US Navy News and updates
- Thread starter AegisFC
- Start date
crewing Burkes are very manpower heavy compared with other similar vessels both due to age of desgine and the US Navy generally larger crew requirements compared with other navies.
* Burkes are generally more man power intensive. You can design this out, but then you are basically redesigning the ship, hence a new class, hence increased cost and risk. Problems and development costs have to be carried by someone. The RAN is not the USN, and the burke is a big navy ship.
* The burkes I believe are too big to build in Australian shipyards (just). 8,000t I think is our limit full load..
* the F-100 is an already proven design in the water, which aligns fairly closely to what we want. Cost and risk are known. It is already a mini burke (or more appriproiately a burke for a small navy). Some modern designs allow enhancement, hull, radar sits slightly higher than a burke.
Besides this is our frigate. The frigate is most likely going to sit on the same 7,000t hull as the AWD, with very simular weapon systems, but is most likely going to feature a non aegis, but aegis compatable radar and combat system. You get a hell of a punch, for less outlay than a burke (with a lot more local content and build).
So far NZ has not express any public wish to join the Australian superpowerful frigate program.
I think the Australian off shore combat vessel (OCV) is something the UK, US and Au could work together. Most likely 2,000t, with basically a 25mm gun up front (and thats it). But large enough to handle small numbers of troops, rescue a sinking boat of refugees, anti piracy, helos, UUV's, rotary UAV's, ASW, survey etc. Space allocated for Phalanx or something but rarely fitted with them. Something big enough to travel across blue water, but focused on doing its job (which is not air defence or fleet defence).
Essentially a LCS without the high speed requirement made using real today LC OTS tech. This would be a ship I think the US, AU and UK could agree on most of the systems (ie non combat) and design.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #244
USN crewing and watch standing methods have more to do with it than anything else. For example the USN uses dedicated damage control technicians who specialize in firefighting, training the rest of the crew in firefighting and other DC and maintaining all the DC equipment, most other navies DC is a secondary duty.
All the ships also have full admin departments though that was being moved ashore and that reduced the crew by about 10 or so to the detriment to the DC teams those admin geeks were a part of since when you get down to it proper DC is a manpower intensive event.
For the last decade or so the USN was experimenting with various methods to reduce manning and all it managed to do is piss off the squids, lead to retention problems, ship material readiness problems and in general is regarded as an unmitigated disaster by anyone without a star on their uniform.
"For the last decade or so the USN was experimenting with various methods to reduce manning and all it managed to do is piss off the squids, lead to retention problems, ship material readiness problems and in general is regarded as an unmitigated disaster by anyone without a star on their uniform."
That might be the understatment of the century.
The bad part is ships like the LCS, DDG-1000, etc........ships built in the timeframe this became doctrine are designed to be built and operated for "optimal manning". Hence LCS doesnt have enough room and is proving more manpower intensive even without here mission moduals.:mad
That might be the understatment of the century.
The bad part is ships like the LCS, DDG-1000, etc........ships built in the timeframe this became doctrine are designed to be built and operated for "optimal manning". Hence LCS doesnt have enough room and is proving more manpower intensive even without here mission moduals.:mad
I have seen the issues they have had the LCS with lean crewing. How to other Euro and NATO forces with much less crews manage without the big USN crews because they have similar at sea time (is the USN much harder on its ships).
how much do dedicated DC crews add to the ships complement, also dose that mean the rest of the crew have less training due a dedicated crew
a little OT I know but curious
Part of it is just the way the ships are built and operated. Designed differently longer ranges etc. Where say the Nimitz carriers are designed to be able to handle alot of missions day in and day out as they have been for a long time another carrier like the De Gaulle isnt really built for it. So where the US has the larger ship crews to perform the maintenance the De Gaulle would in port.
European fleets dont really deploy like we do. Its one reason we tend to have different design/manning/etc for ships.
Our way is more expensive but nessesary for us.
LCS is a cluster. Plain and simple.
The idea morphed from one of:
small cheap and ultimatly expendable ships to:
Vessels the size of ww1 battleships that could perform litteraly EVERYTHING horribly (depending on the sea state atm then maybe not at all). While being undercrewed. Meanwhile the moduals aren't ready even when they work. And over all cost...I believe its now 750mil per vessel and around a hundred or so per modual (which NO ONE has any trust in the moduals being in the right place and the whole system is dependent upon ALWAYS know When, where m why, and how every possible battle could happen) Our record in knowing these things is poor to say the least.
What we need............i know its heresy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDMS_Absalon_(L16)
[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivar_Huitfeldt_class_frigate"]Iver Huitfeldt class frigate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:IVER_001.jpg" class="image"><img alt="IVER 001.jpg" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/71/IVER_001.jpg/300px-IVER_001.jpg"@@AMEPARAM@@commons/thumb/7/71/IVER_001.jpg/300px-IVER_001.jpg[/ame]
Try to control yourselves...
European fleets dont really deploy like we do. Its one reason we tend to have different design/manning/etc for ships.
Our way is more expensive but nessesary for us.
LCS is a cluster. Plain and simple.
The idea morphed from one of:
small cheap and ultimatly expendable ships to:
Vessels the size of ww1 battleships that could perform litteraly EVERYTHING horribly (depending on the sea state atm then maybe not at all). While being undercrewed. Meanwhile the moduals aren't ready even when they work. And over all cost...I believe its now 750mil per vessel and around a hundred or so per modual (which NO ONE has any trust in the moduals being in the right place and the whole system is dependent upon ALWAYS know When, where m why, and how every possible battle could happen) Our record in knowing these things is poor to say the least.
What we need............i know its heresy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDMS_Absalon_(L16)
[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivar_Huitfeldt_class_frigate"]Iver Huitfeldt class frigate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:IVER_001.jpg" class="image"><img alt="IVER 001.jpg" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/71/IVER_001.jpg/300px-IVER_001.jpg"@@AMEPARAM@@commons/thumb/7/71/IVER_001.jpg/300px-IVER_001.jpg[/ame]
Try to control yourselves...
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #248
On a Burke usually between 10-15 people are in the DC division.
The entire crew gets DC training, in boot camp and when they get to the ship through drills and duty day lectures by the DC guys or a squid can be sent to a more realistic DC schools (I've been sent to DC training twice and it was a blast, you fight real fires in a realistic yet controlled setting and maybe play around with pipe patching or flooding control, depending on how long the class is).
I've just read this article...
http://www.dodbuzz.com/2011/08/31/dod-denies-reports-navy-shot-down-libyan-scuds/
Based on a link I found here...
CDR Salamander
Which has additional comment, here...
“Unique Capabilities” in the Libyan conflict | USNI Blog
...Does anyone have an opinion / wish to comment, or is this being covered elsewhere, such as in the Missiles thread ??
SA
http://www.dodbuzz.com/2011/08/31/dod-denies-reports-navy-shot-down-libyan-scuds/
Based on a link I found here...
CDR Salamander
Which has additional comment, here...
“Unique Capabilities” in the Libyan conflict | USNI Blog
...Does anyone have an opinion / wish to comment, or is this being covered elsewhere, such as in the Missiles thread ??
SA
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #250
The DoD is denying any such thing happened.
http://www.dodbuzz.com/2011/08/31/dod-denies-reports-navy-shot-down-libyan-scuds/
Though I'm wondering how come it was reported in the first place.
http://www.dodbuzz.com/2011/08/31/dod-denies-reports-navy-shot-down-libyan-scuds/
Though I'm wondering how come it was reported in the first place.
The good old British story tellers are behind this one.....
Libyan rebels advance on Gaddafi's home town | World news | The Guardian
I never tend to take anything these guys say as being true, even though they may be close to the money on a few things.....
SA
fretburner
Banned Member
Quick question: is it 1 TLAM per Cell in a Mk 41 VLS?
Just read that an SSGN can carry 22 x 7 = 154 TLAMs. That's a LOT of Tomahawks. Considering a Burke or Tico would carry more SM-2/3s vs TLAMs, a lone SSGN could do more damage inland than maybe 4 Burkes/Ticos. Simply amazing.
Just read that an SSGN can carry 22 x 7 = 154 TLAMs. That's a LOT of Tomahawks. Considering a Burke or Tico would carry more SM-2/3s vs TLAMs, a lone SSGN could do more damage inland than maybe 4 Burkes/Ticos. Simply amazing.
Yes, 1 strike length cell.
The SSGN's have huge ICBM tubes. Hence can multipack tlams.
A SSBN with a full nuke load could wipe out an entire continent, so the TLAM power while huge is nothing in comparison.
fretburner
Banned Member
^ Yes. I saw that feature in Discover Channel where they say an Ohio-Class Sub has more firepower than ALL the bombs delivered in WW2. Scary.
fretburner
Banned Member
^ The USN probably will if they push through with the SSBN replacement. But then again, that will mean they have to operate and maintain a lot more subs.
How much firepower does the USN need for land strike?
You have the cruisers, the destroyers and SSGN as well, backed up by carriers. Converting more would eat into the nuclear triad money. Its capability they don't need and costs a lot to run.
While the SSGN is interesting, its hardly an area where the US needs to focus its resources.
As mentioned in one of the other threads, the huge tubes of the SSBN would allow launching of large anti-sat/ABM. Given how much noise the russians are making over land sites, it may be more worthwhile to look at developing submarine based capability (with remote cuing).
You have the cruisers, the destroyers and SSGN as well, backed up by carriers. Converting more would eat into the nuclear triad money. Its capability they don't need and costs a lot to run.
While the SSGN is interesting, its hardly an area where the US needs to focus its resources.
As mentioned in one of the other threads, the huge tubes of the SSBN would allow launching of large anti-sat/ABM. Given how much noise the russians are making over land sites, it may be more worthwhile to look at developing submarine based capability (with remote cuing).
I think the AEGIS/SM-3 combo does nicely for the ABM role.. developing a sub-based ABM capability is going to eat up limited $$$ with very little net gain IMO.
I don't know if 4 X Ohio-class SSGNs is the right number, I just think they are good value for money being able to do long-range strike from a stealthy, mobile platform. Plus the advantage of deploying large contingents of SEALS in littoral operations. They are an effective counter to a country like China with its anti-access/area-denial strategy. They are definitely better than scrapping them for razor blades.
fretburner
Banned Member
Is it safe to say that SSGNs are a LOT more expensive to operate than Burkes?
I'm thinking with the SSBN replacement, maybe it makes sense to convert a few more of the older Ohio-class subs to SSGNs and put all Burkes and Ticos dedicated on ABM/AAW/ASW role. Meaning, these Destroyers/Cruisers will NO longer carry TLAMs.
Or put the number of TLAMs carried by the Burkes/Ticos to a minimum. Doubling the number of SSGNs might NOT cut it -- if the USN wants an SSGN in every theater of operations at all times.
I'm thinking with the SSBN replacement, maybe it makes sense to convert a few more of the older Ohio-class subs to SSGNs and put all Burkes and Ticos dedicated on ABM/AAW/ASW role. Meaning, these Destroyers/Cruisers will NO longer carry TLAMs.
Or put the number of TLAMs carried by the Burkes/Ticos to a minimum. Doubling the number of SSGNs might NOT cut it -- if the USN wants an SSGN in every theater of operations at all times.
No idea about the relative costs of operating Burkes and SSGNs. They stuck with the alternating Gold & Blue crew arrangement with the SSGNs so they should spend plenty of time on station.. I believe they actually fly out the crews to meet the sub at some convenient base abroad.
Its probably good to have a diversified weapons load on the Burkes to be responsive to different situations as they arise.