US Navy News and updates

[fretburner]

To put it another way.

Imagine if the SR-71 had to do everything from air superiority (inc. dogfights etc) to transport, bombing, recon, ground support like a warthog, ALL while still being able to go mach 3+?

Yes, except that this Zumwalt is not supposed to be true multi-mission battlecruiser right? It's supposed to be and ABM-capable AAW cruiser with the ability to support marines with their AGS.

I know it's still NOT something like a specialized, mach 3 recon plane like the SR71 or a dedicated stealth bomber in the B2, but... comparing the Zumwalt with the Flight 3 Burke which will use the same Zumwalt radar anyway... then the only main difference with respect to their roles would be the ability to support Marines on shore with their guns.

Why can't the USN be as good as the USAF when introducing new technologies?

Not possible. Not practicle. That is what the Navy asked for though. Originaly the LCS was a small cheap basicly Large cheap patrol vessel. It morphed into something the size of a ww2 destroyer with less firepower and a humongous price tag. DDG-1K became a ship with so much new tech which is unproven that even after they are launched they will still be indock (Like the LCS) for years to come constantly having upgrades and maintanence done. Whats worse both ships will be undermanned.

Don't you think it's a little too early to say the Zumwalt will be undermanned?

The LCS is the first ship to stray away from the "typical" manning of a USN warship. What if it works in the LCS?

BTW the Technology that is a Part of the DDG1k program isnt what is in question here. Its putting all of this onto ONE vessel without testing it on others for awhile therefore they MUST work.

The all electric drive is something the Navy has needed for awhile just maybe not the engines as they are a problem. Various other systems Great.

Remember the problem wasnt the ships but the people who asked for such a bad Mission design (Navy) and the people who came up with it (the company-GD).

Oh and at 3.3 billion each at launch they are to big to fail and to damn expensive.

Could you elaborate on the "bad mission design" for the Zumwalt?

I always thought it will still essentially be an AAW destroyer/cruiser. The naval gun fire support is only a secondary capability.

 

[rip]

They tried that.......it was called optimal manning and guess what doesnt work.

Not only that its more expensive and what if they ship takes damage in a storm or in a engagment? Not only that but the sailors are sailing on her get to know the ship better than any mechanic.

Another thing. You can't say "wait a sec guys we need to do some work on our ships so can we take a day off or maybe 2 months?". No the work would need to be done while the ship was at sea.

This is something the LCS was built for. Guess what? They stay in port all the time.

Modular is fine. Except what if your using the wrong modual. Then you must go to the nearest port, a port which must have the loading cranes, access to a large landing strip for the C-17 (which are already hard to get sense they are always in demand) that is carrying the Modual and crew (because some moduals have different crew requirments). Then pull the old one out, put the new one in check to make sure it works. Then Refuel (because these things have crap range at high speed). So then its already been what 36-48hrs sense the call came in and someone has either delt with it or the situation has changed.

The problem with LCS, DDG-1K all of them is that they work on a few asumptions.

1) Nothing goes wrong.

2) The US Knows litteraly everything a week before it happens and that nothing is ignored.

Thats just a couple. Anyone see the problem. I appologise if i get worked up but having watched this program for years, talked with the sailors who will be a part of it who say it looks like a cluster flunk, Talked with the ship builders who can tell me all the nightmares they see here.......My mind is blown trying to figure out how such programs can still exist in the real world.

I am not disputing anything that you say. You list the problems and weakness quite correctly. But what has been proven by experienced over the years is that the old solutions no longer work and cannot be sustained economically nor is there the political will to do so. You are, if you realize it or not, advocating for the old navy just with new ships, a navy that worked very well in its time when men were men and political correctness and all that other stuff was just a bad joke. But in one way or another, a navy will reflect the country that creates it and it must adapt to the times it exists in.

I wish we still lived in that country that had that old navy but we don’t. But that does not mean that we cannot find a way to protect the nation. The new modern approach to building ships and manning them may well in the end be inadequate as you say but it is an attempt to adapt to the realities of our time.

 

[Belesari]

Yes, except that this Zumwalt is not supposed to be true multi-mission battlecruiser right? It's supposed to be and ABM-capable AAW cruiser with the ability to support marines with their AGS.

I know it's still NOT something like a specialized, mach 3 recon plane like the SR71 or a dedicated stealth bomber in the B2, but... comparing the Zumwalt with the Flight 3 Burke which will use the same Zumwalt radar anyway... then the only main difference with respect to their roles would be the ability to support Marines on shore with their guns.

Why can't the USN be as good as the USAF when introducing new technologies?



Don't you think it's a little too early to say the Zumwalt will be undermanned?

The LCS is the first ship to stray away from the "typical" manning of a USN warship. What if it works in the LCS?



Could you elaborate on the "bad mission design" for the Zumwalt?

I always thought it will still essentially be an AAW destroyer/cruiser. The naval gun fire support is only a secondary capability.

Zumwalt functions on the assumption that the technologies incorperated will work perfectly. Also in order to provide NGFS with the AGS it will need to come closer to shore. This will mean it will be closer to many enemy units and weapon systems. Now the AGS is still from what i've heard not truely ready. Still a few issues to work out which isnt as big of a deal but there it is.

The two of the biggest ones is this Composite deck house to reduce radar sig. Tumblehome hull.

The Tumblehome isnt new. It was used before on battleships and such and the stability issues were noted. BTW this was on ships with much wider butts. So not new and a know problem.

The Composite deck house is kinda missleading. A good part of it is wood. One of the problems is can come in over time. For instance in the aluminum construction of the Ticos. HUGE cracks have appeard and are having to get replaced. There are other problems in the design but you can look for those yourself.

Crew wise its like this. LCS and others that went on the Optimal manning system have a problem. There arent enough people. The reason the LCS HAS to have the top 10% of surface fleet is that the ships needs more done than can be handled by the crews. They work constantly nonstop and in a combat enviroment will be working even harder. When people get tired they make mistakes and when people get tired they dont work as hard. So here is a biggy. Because of the Design of the LCS (Speed over all things) there isn't space for additional crew. Its all filled up..no upgrades. The DDG-51 and other successful ships have been built with space that could be used for future upgrades. With LCS and im assuming DDG1K you dont have that.(they already made changes to the LCS-1 design to give it something like 10,000lbs more fuel i believe to increase range).

Plus they still cant get down how they will handle Fire suppression as some systems wont work if there is a hull breach. The US navy usually has fire control teams but i doubt they included them on these ships.

BTW The Zumwalts focus more on Land attack so they arent really designed for AA.

Really what it comes down to for me is how they navy has handled these programs.

Stupidity. For instance i completely agree with the large flight deck of the LCS-1&LCS-2 designs........but can someone explain to me why they are supposed to launch amphib assualts with EFV's and strykiers(wtf would they have strykiers?)?

Remember this is a ship that has no armor. LIKE your cars sheet metal outside thickness.

 

[StobieWan]

Stupidity. For instance i completely agree with the large flight deck of the LCS-1&LCS-2 designs........but can someone explain to me why they are supposed to launch amphib assualts with EFV's and strykiers(wtf would they have strykiers?)?

Remember this is a ship that has no armor. LIKE your cars sheet metal outside thickness.

I've never heard they are supposed to do anything of the sort - they've no facilities to embark any AFVs nor any well deck. It's not a mission they've been given, which might explain why they can't do it.

 

[colay]

Where's this coming from?

Stupidity. For instance i completely agree with the large flight deck of the LCS-1&LCS-2 designs........but can someone explain to me why they are supposed to launch amphib assualts with EFV's and strykiers(wtf would they have strykiers?)?
Remember this is a ship that has no armor. LIKE your cars sheet metal outside thickness.

Could you be confusing this..

with this...?

 

[swerve]

Off the top of my head...

USS Monitor

Ironclad? Been around for years on (steam-powered) floating batteries, & La Gloire (an ocean-going warship, not confined to sheltered waters like Monitor) was in service, & famous, a couple of years before work even began on Monitor.
HMS Warrior was already built by then, & was a fully iron-hulled armoured warship (timber was used as backing to the armour, due to tests having showed that was superior to un-backed iron plates), not an ironclad wooden hull, as Monitor was.

Turreted guns? Rotating turrets had already been trialled by the RN on one of the aforesaid floating batteries.

I think the powered turret was entirely new.

 

[Belesari]

Ironclad? Been around for years on (steam-powered) floating batteries, & La Gloire (an ocean-going warship, not confined to sheltered waters like Monitor) was in service, & famous, a couple of years before work even began on Monitor.
HMS Warrior was already built by then, & was a fully iron-hulled armoured warship (timber was used as backing to the armour, due to tests having showed that was superior to un-backed iron plates), not an ironclad wooden hull, as Monitor was.

Turreted guns? Rotating turrets had already been trialled by the RN on one of the aforesaid floating batteries.

I think the powered turret was entirely new.

Yea powered turret was new and i believe trying it all on a hull powered solely by steam was a first also.

And wasnt the Monitor mostly steel and iron with wood only as armor underneath the steel decking?

 

[Belesari]

Where's this coming from?




Could you be confusing this..

with this...?

Nope can even find it on the Wiki page. Remember what i said about Stupid design demands

The interior volume and payload is greater than some destroyers and is sufficient to serve as a high-speed transport and maneuver platform. The mission bay is 15,200 square feet (1,410 m2), and takes up most of the deck below the hangar and flight deck.

In addition to cargo or container-sized mission modules, the bay can carry four lanes of multiple Strykers, armored Humvees, and their associated troops. An elevator allows air transport of packages the size of a 20-foot-long (6.1 m) shipping container that can be moved into the mission bay while at sea. A side access ramp allows for vehicle roll-on/roll-off loading to a dock and allows the ship to transport the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle.[10]

That is for LCS-2.

LCS-1 has several other problems. For instance look at that 57mm......now how much can it depress without taking out the deck? Thats the problem. Both ships have alot of issues.

 

[colay]

Nope can even find it on the Wiki page. Remember what i said about Stupid design demands

The interior volume and payload is greater than some destroyers and is sufficient to serve as a high-speed transport and maneuver platform. The mission bay is 15,200 square feet (1,410 m2), and takes up most of the deck below the hangar and flight deck.
K
In addition to cargo or container-sized mission modules, the bay can carry four lanes of multiple Strykers, armored Humvees, and their associated troops. An elevator allows air transport of packages the size of a 20-foot-long (6.1 m) shipping container that can be moved into the mission bay while at sea. A side access ramp allows for vehicle roll-on/roll-off loading to a dock and allows the ship to transport the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle.[10]

That is for LCS-2.

LCS-1 has several other problems. For instance look at that 57mm......now how much can it depress without taking out the deck? Thats the problem. Both ships have alot of issues.

I think you have to take Wiki info with a big grain of salt, more so when its unsupported by credible corroborting links.. often, they reflect the Wiki contributor's opinions or assumptions.Transporting humvees and strykers isn't included in the the mission sets which the USN has identified and is building MMs for.. to use the LCS as a cargo truck would be a wasteful use of a valuable resource.. the JHSV or LCAC would fit the bill better and can even accommodate MBTs.

Re technical issues the 2 leadships have encountered, expect lessons learned to be applied into the respective designs. Again, all par for the course in the development of a complex weapons system.. that's the nature of the business.

 

[StobieWan]

Nope can even find it on the Wiki page. Remember what i said about Stupid design demands

The interior volume and payload is greater than some destroyers and is sufficient to serve as a high-speed transport and maneuver platform. The mission bay is 15,200 square feet (1,410 m2), and takes up most of the deck below the hangar and flight deck.

In addition to cargo or container-sized mission modules, the bay can carry four lanes of multiple Strykers, armored Humvees, and their associated troops. An elevator allows air transport of packages the size of a 20-foot-long (6.1 m) shipping container that can be moved into the mission bay while at sea. A side access ramp allows for vehicle roll-on/roll-off loading to a dock and allows the ship to transport the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle.[10]

Have a read of this free to view article from DID, it covers things in better detail and more accurately then Wiki..

There's mention of the space being used for transportation in disaster and emergency aid situations but as has been said, it'd be a waste. There's nothing in there about mounting direct assaults from the sea using LCS as an amphib carrier however.



The USA’s New Littoral Combat Ships (LCS)

 

[icelord]

Have a read of this free to view article from DID, it covers things in better detail and more accurately then Wiki..

There's mention of the space being used for transportation in disaster and emergency aid situations but as has been said, it'd be a waste. There's nothing in there about mounting direct assaults from the sea using LCS as an amphib carrier however.

The USA’s New Littoral Combat Ships (LCS)

Maybe hes thinking about a smaller version of the LCS, the Multi Role Corvette
Theres a video somewhere but im struggling to find it on the website.
The MRC has room for vehicles and troops, allowing for moving a platoon ashore or vehicles, as well as a landing platform for a small helo.

Austal Multi Role Vessel :: Naval Vessels :: Defence Products :: Products And Services :: Austal

 

[Jhom]

Have a read of this free to view article from DID, it covers things in better detail and more accurately then Wiki..

There's mention of the space being used for transportation in disaster and emergency aid situations but as has been said, it'd be a waste. There's nothing in there about mounting direct assaults from the sea using LCS as an amphib carrier however.



The USA’s New Littoral Combat Ships (LCS)

Naval analyst Raymond Pritchett has pithily described the current compromise as:

”...3000 ton speedboat chasers with the endurance of a Swedish corvette, the weapon payload of a German logistics ship, and the cargo hold of a small North Korean arms smuggler.”

And all of that for just 700.000.000 USD...nfloorl:

 

[kev 99]

Maybe hes thinking about a smaller version of the LCS, the Multi Role Corvette
Theres a video somewhere but im struggling to find it on the website.
The MRC has room for vehicles and troops, allowing for moving a platoon ashore or vehicles, as well as a landing platform for a small helo.

Austal Multi Role Vessel :: Naval Vessels :: Defence Products :: Products And Services :: Austal

Yes I've also seen this video and it definitely had Strykers in it! I believe the video was intended as a part of a presentation to the Isreali Navy who had shown some interested in buying a version of the LCS.

 

[Belesari]

Have a read of this free to view article from DID, it covers things in better detail and more accurately then Wiki..

There's mention of the space being used for transportation in disaster and emergency aid situations but as has been said, it'd be a waste. There's nothing in there about mounting direct assaults from the sea using LCS as an amphib carrier however.



The USA’s New Littoral Combat Ships (LCS)

No i remember the ability to mount landings directly from the LCS was something touted as "Game changing" when the LCS where still undergoing bidding process. And Wiki was just a example as something quick and easy to find. Wiki is actucally pretty good as long as the subject isnt political.

 

[Belesari]

Naval analyst Raymond Pritchett has pithily described the current compromise as:

”...3000 ton speedboat chasers with the endurance of a Swedish corvette, the weapon payload of a German logistics ship, and the cargo hold of a small North Korean arms smuggler.”

And all of that for just 700.000.000 USD...nfloorl:

No, No, No. Jhom. 700mil is just for the ship the moduals are "projected' to cost between 100-200mil a peice.

I think the LCS COULD be a much better design if they would do away with the Speed requirment. Which is basicly so it can run really fast when a true warship gets near it..........not sure how it will out run FAC's with antiship missils on them.

 

[StevoJH]

No i remember the ability to mount landings directly from the LCS was something touted as "Game changing" when the LCS where still undergoing bidding process. And Wiki was just a example as something quick and easy to find. Wiki is actucally pretty good as long as the subject isnt political.

I don't remember reading anything about Amphibious ops from the LCS, special forces deployment possibly, but not Amphibious ops.

If it was being suggested when bidding was occuring, it may have been dropped from the final requirement.

 

[Jhom]

No, No, No. Jhom. 700mil is just for the ship the moduals are "projected' to cost between 100-200mil a peice.

I think the LCS COULD be a much better design if they would do away with the Speed requirment. Which is basicly so it can run really fast when a true warship gets near it..........not sure how it will out run FAC's with antiship missils on them.

Didnt know that... then this glorified OPV is going to cost almost the same as an F-100 frigate!!! Thanks for the info

 

[colay]

For a more accurate assessment of the LCS pricing and a view of the program from the guy-in-chargeoverall, here are a couple of enlightening links worth the read.

LCS Contract Awards Officially Announced
“Heading Fair” | SLDInfo

-edit-
Typically, the quoted costs include all sorts of bundled support and technical services and other nebulous items.
I'm intrigued and curious about the "second source"pedtaining to some unspecified. Equipment and related integration sdrvices . Anyone know more about these? Could they be in connection with the initial MissionModule for each ship perhaps or some government-supplied kit?

 

[Belesari]

The mission moduals are not included in ship cost and the military has alot of ways to make fuzzy numbers.

Here is a question. Why did they choose BOTH ships? One of the reasons the LCS was supposed to be cheaper was comonality of parts.......but the ships dont share them so over all the ships are now even more expensive.

Neither ship can really meet the realistic goals set. Neither ship now has the weapons it needed for its job.

For a more accurate assessment of the LCS pricing and a view of the program from the guy-in-chargeoverall, here are a couple of enlightening links worth the read.

LCS Contract Awards Officially Announced
“Heading Fair” | SLDInfo

-edit-
Typically, the quoted costs include all sorts of bundled support and technical services and other nebulous items.
I'm intrigued and curious about the "second source"pedtaining to some unspecified. Equipment and related integration sdrvices . Anyone know more about these? Could they be in connection with the initial MissionModule for each ship perhaps or some government-supplied kit?

 

[Belesari]

OK im gonna quite this because i can already see it wont end as i can be....erm stuborn as a mule about some stuff.

I appologise for the huge amount of post and taking up the US Navy forum.