US Navy News and updates

[John Fedup]

Interesting line was the 8-11 CVNs and 6-8 CVs for future defence needs. To me that looks like cut 3 CVNs so we can build 6-8 CVs. As others have pointed out, the US ship yard capacity is lacking, especially wrt the ship maintenance. This is particularly true for nuclear subs and CVNs. If this is primarily due to the nuclear maintenance requirements then perhaps CVs can increase availability rates somewhat albeit with less capability compared to a CVN. Where this plan might fall apart is with the actual CV design. IMO, anything much larger than an America class will be a problem politically and finding the yard capacity will be a challenge.

 

[John Fedup]

An article describing the state naval maintenance yards. Clearly something has to be done now if the USN wants a 500 ship fleet as the current 300 ship fleet isn’t being properly supported.

As Navy Pushes for More Ships, Experts Warn Repair Yards Are Crumbling

One congressman suggests contracting ship maintenance work to private yards or even working with allies.

www.defenseone.com

 

[KiwiRob]

Wanting to increase navy size when they really don't even have the capacity to meet current size. Needs less of an investment in growing the navy and more into rebuilding their shipbuilding industry. Trying to get such a fleet size just going to see some extending the lives of existing ships to get the 500 ship navy on paper though in real world it will be aged and maintenance heavy.

With the massive budget deficits the US continues to run is it financially prudent to even aim for a 500 ship navy?? At some point the US isn't to be able to continue financing its debt, the house of cards will collapse.

 

[ngatimozart]

With the massive budget deficits the US continues to run is it financially prudent to even aim for a 500 ship navy?? At some point the US isn't to be able to continue financing its debt, the house of cards will collapse.

Agree, and its not just the USN but the the 5 military forces as well. The wider federal government departments like Health, Post Office, State etc., will be severally impacted.

 

[vonnoobie]

It's an ongoing issue with the US. How many tens of billions if not hundreds of billions wasted over the years starting and cancelling programs often to make a "superior" American product when someone overseas (Europe) has already designed and fielded something that fits the bill. Or having to have the biggest baddest weapon at extreme cost then cancelled because of cost.

They really do need to have a long hard think in their military and government around long term plans, if they can actually afford it and sustain it for the 30-50 years they will have it.

As a nation if they want a sustainable military they need to get leaner.

 

[Terran]

It's an ongoing issue with the US. How many tens of billions if not hundreds of billions wasted over the years starting and cancelling programs often to make a "superior" American product when someone overseas (Europe) has already designed and fielded something that fits the bill. Or having to have the biggest baddest weapon at extreme cost then cancelled because of cost.

First consider the number of products today in the DOD that are imports of design. The Constellation class frigates in US service have to match USN requirements. Including indigenous builds by US law.
Next just because it meets the need to a degree doesn’t mean it actually fit the requirements.

Next even with the increase Defense spending in the US is 54% of discretionary spending which is only 15% of Federal spending on the whole and 3.4% of GDP.

 

[John Fedup]

The CNO outlines the USN priorities in this article. He wants something sized between an AB and a Zumwalt it will have an IEP system for future electronic weapons. Surely using the existing Zumwalt without the AGS should be about cost neutral compared with a new design and the new learning curve for construction? It’s IEP works and it has the growth potential and should be deployable sooner. As for the SSN(x), can’t happen soon enough and if surface ships have to be cut to make this happen, do it.

CNO Gilday Lays Out Priorities for 'DDG Next' Warship, New Attack Submarine - USNI News

The Navy’s next warship needs more missiles than the current crop of Arleigh Burke guided-missile destroyers but must be smaller and cheaper than the trio of Zumwalt-class DDGs, Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Mike Gilday said on Tuesday. Tentatively dubbed “DDG Next” by Gilday, the new class of...

news.usni.org

 

[vonnoobie]

The CNO outlines the USN priorities in this article. He wants something sized between an AB and a Zumwalt it will have an IEP system for future electronic weapons. Surely using the existing Zumwalt without the AGS should be about cost neutral compared with a new design and the new learning curve for construction? It’s IEP works and it has the growth potential and should be deployable sooner. As for the SSN(x), can’t happen soon enough and if surface ships have to be cut to make this happen, do it.

CNO Gilday Lays Out Priorities for 'DDG Next' Warship, New Attack Submarine - USNI News

The Navy’s next warship needs more missiles than the current crop of Arleigh Burke guided-missile destroyers but must be smaller and cheaper than the trio of Zumwalt-class DDGs, Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Mike Gilday said on Tuesday. Tentatively dubbed “DDG Next” by Gilday, the new class of...

news.usni.org

Or they could I don't know just build the Sejong the great class? Already bigger and in service but nope as per USN fashion said ship must be all American.

 

[spoz]

Maybe because they are only 1500 tons bigger than an AB, are based on the AB design, use a hull form from 40 years ago, aren’t exactly optimised for electric drive, are designed around a lot of Korean systems which the USN doesn’t use, are built to Korean not USN standards, and dozens of other reasons. The StGs are good ships, but they are not the be all and end all of destroyer design nor are they universally suitable for everyone.

The Koreans and the Japanese have taken the basic AB design and modified it to their own needs. The USN is more than capable of doing that, too - indeed they have with the various AB flights; done, of course, largely by Gibbs and Cox, who also had major involvement early in both the Japanese and Korean programs. I rather think they are big enough boys and girls to derive their own design for a ship which, if the ABs are any guide, might be in production for the next 30 years.

The fact that they have produced a couple of less than totally satisfactory designs, both compromised at least to some extent by weapon system concepts which didn’t actually work out all that well, doesn’t mean they are doomed to do that again.

As for NIH,surely FFG62 proves that is not an issue? Not that there are really any suitable LSC designs around for the USN to adapt except the Zummies; oh, and maybe that Chinese thing......

 

[chis73]

TBH, I am kind of surprised that Gilday is not recommending a nuclear-powered cruiser (say a next-gen version of the cold-war Virginia class, with VLS instead of the Mk26 launchers). I figure that if I was envisioning having to fight on the far side of the Pacific, with very extended and vulnerable supply lines - I would want my limited number of tankers to be hauling as much avgas as possible, not bunker fuel for my surface escorts. A nuke cruiser, I understand has significantly higher build costs & manpower costs, but it would certainly be future-proofed for new-fangled weapons like rail guns and lasers. These 'new DDGs' will be the Ticonderoga class cruiser replacements, no (he says, admitting that the Flight III Burkes will be nearly the same size)? ie. the project previously known as the Future Large Surface Combatant. Their main job will be close escort of carrier groups. If you already have a nuclear carrier, might as well make the big ships in its escort group nuclear as well, especially if you have to move the CBG around a lot to prevent the opposition getting a fix on it.

 

[John Fedup]

Given the supply and distance issues in the Pacific, nuclear would seem to be a solution but a 10-14K ton ship probably can’t contain radiation after a hit even though the ship still floats It would have to be abandoned for crew safety, total loss. Add in the expense of the actual nuclear power plant, cost starts to get ugly. The differential could buy a lot of AORS IMHO. Nuclear propulsion is best suited for 100k carriers and subs.

 

[Redlands18]

Given the supply and distance issues in the Pacific, nuclear would seem to be a solution but a 10-14K ton ship probably can’t contain radiation after a hit even though the ship still floats It would have to be abandoned for crew safety, total loss. Add in the expense of the actual nuclear power plant, cost starts to get ugly. The differential could buy a lot of AORS IMHO. Nuclear propulsion is best suited for 100k carriers and subs.

The USN stopped building CGNs in the late 70s after commissioning 8 for a reason, despite what looks on paper to be the better option. The cost was possibly just to high to be justified.

 

[vonnoobie]

@spoz fair point on the StG. I'm sure they have the capability to design what is needed at reasonable cost and bring it into service but I guess I am less optimistic that they will do so with the number of started, scaled back and cancelled projects they have had not counting fact if they can barely maintain their current vessels how are they going to maintain something larger and potentially more complex.

All the best to them truly but I won't be holding my breath, hope they prove me wrong

 

[Boagrius]

@spoz fair point on the StG. I'm sure they have the capability to design what is needed at reasonable cost and bring it into service but I guess I am less optimistic that they will do so with the number of started, scaled back and cancelled projects they have had not counting fact if they can barely maintain their current vessels how are they going to maintain something larger and potentially more complex.

All the best to them truly but I won't be holding my breath, hope they prove me wrong

I guess the X-factor is that Zumwalt was born into a post-Cold War, peace dividend world where its relevance was openly questioned. We are now squarely in a period of peer competition, so I would expect this will focus both requirements and ongoing support somewhat.

 

[John Fedup]

I guess the X-factor is that Zumwalt was born into a post-Cold War, peace dividend world where its relevance was openly questioned. We are now squarely in a period of peer competition, so I would expect this will focus both requirements and ongoing support somewhat.

I never understood the ashore gun support mission even if the AGS ammo was reasonably priced. Why expose a multi billion dollar ship to who knows how many land based missiles?

Three Zumwalts with AGS, unaffordable and next to useless, 10+ with extra missiles, conventional guns, affordable and a good upgrade on ABs with an excellent growth potential towards energy directed weapons. IMO, a better way forward than designing a somewhat smaller hull.

 

[Terran]

I never understood the ashore gun support mission even if the AGS ammo was reasonably priced. Why expose a multi billion dollar ship to who knows how many land based missiles?

Three Zumwalts with AGS, unaffordable and next to useless, 10+ with extra missiles, conventional guns, affordable and a good upgrade on ABs with an excellent growth potential towards energy directed weapons. IMO, a better way forward than designing a somewhat smaller hull.

That’s where the stealth was to come in the AGS was supposed to offer longer ranges than then available ship guns combined with low observable features so as to allow it to stand off and offer naval artillery fire to the USMC on amphibious assault. A capacity lost with the retirement of conventional cruisers and the Battle cruisers like the Mighty Mo.
ASBMs hadn’t been available yet the ASMs on the market were shorter ranged allowing for vehicles like Zumwalt and the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle to be seen as practical. They felt that 100km out was safe enough. As said though by the time they were being built the rules had changed. ASBM pushed safe ranges farther out to sea.

The slashing of the unit order drove up the price point of the ammunition for the AGS and Ships themselves astronomically. Much like what happened to the Seawolf class. But where SSN21 was partially salvaged by the Virginia class, Zumwalt has been slowly becoming a Burke class as the Navy bolts on bits and bobs leaving intended more advanced systems to scrap.
The problem with Burke is although good it’s maxing out it’s hull and energy growth potential rather quickly. It’s fine for 2020 but 2025.. Each block of Burke is getting substantially heavier. Systems like DE require far more electrical power to support them which is increasingly less available on the Burkes as other new systems eat into the small 7.5MW of block 2.5. The new Block 3 is said to up that to 12 MW.
Which is where Zumwalt was supposed to come in. It was to be followed on by more conventional destroyer and cruiser derivatives built on the same hull type taking advantage of the 58 megawatts of onboard electrical power.
It may not be the popular opinion but I feel that the Zumwalt hull and aspects could/should be salvaged into a the Future Surface Combatant much like how aspects of Seawolf were crafted into Virginia class and will be crafted into Columbia class.
The increased power generation offering more potential for DE or Rail guns, The Mk57 was designed to allow larger missiles than the Mk41, the acoustic and RCS designs to increase survival.
Of course changes made. Newer more common more mature phased array radars and data links as well as combat systems, more conventional base armament in terms of hyper velocity guns and defensive armament.

 

[John Fedup]

That’s where the stealth was to come in the AGS was supposed to offer longer ranges than then available ship guns combined with low observable features so as to allow it to stand off and offer naval artillery fire to the USMC on amphibious assault. A capacity lost with the retirement of conventional cruisers and the Battle cruisers like the Mighty Mo.
ASBMs hadn’t been available yet the ASMs on the market were shorter ranged allowing for vehicles like Zumwalt and the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle to be seen as practical. They felt that 100km out was safe enough. As said though by the time they were being built the rules had changed. ASBM pushed safe ranges farther out to sea.

The slashing of the unit order drove up the price point of the ammunition for the AGS and Ships themselves astronomically. Much like what happened to the Seawolf class. But where SSN21 was partially salvaged by the Virginia class, Zumwalt has been slowly becoming a Burke class as the Navy bolts on bits and bobs leaving intended more advanced systems to scrap.
The problem with Burke is although good it’s maxing out it’s hull and energy growth potential rather quickly. It’s fine for 2020 but 2025.. Each block of Burke is getting substantially heavier. Systems like DE require far more electrical power to support them which is increasingly less available on the Burkes as other new systems eat into the small 7.5MW of block 2.5. The new Block 3 is said to up that to 12 MW.
Which is where Zumwalt was supposed to come in. It was to be followed on by more conventional destroyer and cruiser derivatives built on the same hull type taking advantage of the 58 megawatts of onboard electrical power.
It may not be the popular opinion but I feel that the Zumwalt hull and aspects could/should be salvaged into a the Future Surface Combatant much like how aspects of Seawolf were crafted into Virginia class and will be crafted into Columbia class.
The increased power generation offering more potential for DE or Rail guns, The Mk57 was designed to allow larger missiles than the Mk41, the acoustic and RCS designs to increase survival.
Of course changes made. Newer more common more mature phased array radars and data links as well as combat systems, more conventional base armament in terms of hyper velocity guns and defensive armament.

I agree, a modified Zumwalt makes sense. I believe the two MT30s provide over 70 MW at present.

 

[ASSAIL]

The attached video is a good insight into docking Mk VI Patrol Craft into a LSD. Unfortunately there’s no shot of the boats at high speed.
I have no experience with ship docks but given the sea conditions I would have thought that the LSD should have maintained slow ahead to ease the conditions inside the dock. Wallowing around stopped doesn’t seem to be a good idea.
Turn the sound off unless you want to bop along.

I have no idea what happened to the vid I copied from YouTube? AFAIK I didn’t break any copyright because it was up for quite some time?

 

[ASSAIL]

Double post

 

[FormerDirtDart]

I would guess a number of people may be wondering "How many Mk VIs can they fit in a well deck?"


@FormerDirtDart Source for this image please. Rule #14 applies.
Ngatimozart