US Navy News and updates

[swerve]

Ok first off AGS looks pretty good. But the main reasons they are going to the 6.1 inch gun is it actucally is a 155mm which is the standard for the army and marines. This means rounds would be cheaper and comonality between services means sharing the cost for certain things like new technologies etc. .

But the AGS ammunition only shares its calibre with army 155mm guns. The AGS shells are twice the length & weight of standard 155 mm rounds.

The technology that can be shared can also be shared with 127mm, like the Oto Melara guided ammunition, where technology is shared between 76mm & 127mm.

 

[StevoJH]

But the AGS ammunition only shares its calibre with army 155mm guns. The AGS shells are twice the length & weight of standard 155 mm rounds.

The technology that can be shared can also be shared with 127mm, like the Oto Melara guided ammunition, where technology is shared between 76mm & 127mm.

My understanding is that (in basic terms) the AGS fires barrel launched missiles rather then conventional rounds.

 

[Belesari]

But the AGS ammunition only shares its calibre with army 155mm guns. The AGS shells are twice the length & weight of standard 155 mm rounds.

The technology that can be shared can also be shared with 127mm, like the Oto Melara guided ammunition, where technology is shared between 76mm & 127mm.

I'll have to check but i think the normal rounds not the long ranged ones are the same. The length of the shells for army 155 has gone up to i believe. I THINK they are the same have to ask a buddy of mine thats his show.

Hey i was never for the AGS in the first place i thing a 8in gun would really be best. That or 16inchers. Pretty sure if you did a refit and upgrade of the Iowa's you could remove the aft turret and rebuild it for a helo pad and hanger and more tomahawks, antiship missiles, CIWS, etc

 

[Belesari]

My understanding is that (in basic terms) the AGS fires barrel launched missiles rather then conventional rounds.

I think thats only the long ranged rounds not the standard. Other wise why are we building a system to launch 2,000,000 or so dollars worth of shells a minute?

 

[Belesari]

OK WOW If this is true good god.

"The Navy’s actual per-ship cost projections currently stand at around $3.15 billion, and the project appears to be more or less on course at this early production stage. The Navy’s figure is disputed by Congressional Budget Office reports, which place it at $5.1 billion. The Navy claims that the CBO’s estimate doesn’t consider shipyard improvements that change the build process, a more mature detailed design that has been built several thousand times by computer (a capability developed as a “lesson learned” from the Arleigh Burke program); and the roughly $500 million per ship that is being contracted for on a firm-fixed-price basis. On the other hand, the CBO has been right, and the Navy wrong, when estimating other recent shipbuilding programs"

Dead Aim, Or Dead End? The USA’s DDG-1000 Zumwalt Class Program

5.1B per ship. :flaming

 

[StevoJH]

I think thats only the long ranged rounds not the standard. Other wise why are we building a system to launch 2,000,000 or so dollars worth of shells a minute?

Not sure if this has changed, but the original plan for the AGS was that it would only be able to fire the guided rounds. It could not fire conventional unguided munitions.

 

[StobieWan]

I'll have to check but i think the normal rounds not the long ranged ones are the same. The length of the shells for army 155 has gone up to i believe. I THINK they are the same have to ask a buddy of mine thats his show.

Hey i was never for the AGS in the first place i thing a 8in gun would really be best. That or 16inchers. Pretty sure if you did a refit and upgrade of the Iowa's you could remove the aft turret and rebuild it for a helo pad and hanger and more tomahawks, antiship missiles, CIWS, etc

AGS doesn't have anything in common with the Army 155mm gun as far as I'm aware and there are no intentions to use any unguided rounds.

Don't even start on a refit/upgrade of the Iowas - it's fantasy land, they're beyond recovery.

(there's a very good set of threads on the Warships board in a dedicated section that covers the entirety of what you'd have to do)

Ian

 

[AegisFC]

5.1B per ship. :flaming

To be fair there is a LOT of development costs built into the price of those ships that is not present in the Burkes. New engineering plant, new NG owned combat system, new radars, that idiotic AGS, PVLS, composite superstructure, the list goes on. This is the first ship that just isn't a Spruance drive train and other mostly OTS gear in 30 or so years and the costs reflect that.

 

[Belesari]

To be fair there is a LOT of development costs built into the price of those ships that is not present in the Burkes. New engineering plant, new NG owned combat system, new radars, that idiotic AGS, PVLS, composite superstructure, the list goes on. This is the first ship that just isn't a Spruance drive train and other mostly OTS gear in 30 or so years and the costs reflect that.

OH yea i understand that. The Navy really sank the DDG1K because the class had to support all of that cost in R&D. Just another example of trying to do to much at one time.

 

[Sea Toby]

I'll have to check but i think the normal rounds not the long ranged ones are the same. The length of the shells for army 155 has gone up to i believe. I THINK they are the same have to ask a buddy of mine thats his show.

Hey i was never for the AGS in the first place i thing a 8in gun would really be best. That or 16inchers. Pretty sure if you did a refit and upgrade of the Iowa's you could remove the aft turret and rebuild it for a helo pad and hanger and more tomahawks, antiship missiles, CIWS, etc

I recall the last time the battleships were brought back into service. Some were delusional and quick to claim they could be operated for less than an aircraft carrier. Not so. So much of the equipment was so old parts were hard to find, and much of the old stuff was replaced which wasn't cheap. They were more trouble than what they were worth...

Now after another decade has passed, some folks want to bring the old battlewagons back? Sorry, won't happen... While the non air condition ships outside of the radar shack might be useful in the North Atlantic, they were sweat boxes in the tropics. But the worst strike against the old battlewagons was and will still be the lack of electrical power. Sailors and warships consume so much more electricity today than a half century or more ago...

Don't be misled by some gunner's mate. The big guns are a red herring... During Operation Desert Storm the battlewagons fired many more missiles than they ever did their big guns... A snipe knows better...

 

[colay]

defence.professionals | defpro.com

Here's feedback on the LCS program... mentions possible mission modules for the USMC, SOF and missile defense variant.

 

[AegisFC]

Secretary of Defense Panetta is saying that cutting the number of CVN's is not going to happen in the current round of budget cuts. Except for a small gap from the time Enterprise is decommed and Ford comes on line.

U.S. won't cut carrier fleet to fix budget, Panetta says | Reuters

The favored plan to cut a carrier involved basically running the George Washington until she ran out of fuel then decomming her instead of performing a refueling overhaul. Glad to see that's off the table, at least for nwo.

 

[rjmaz1]

I'm hearing that there is a pretty big push for more nuclear ships...

1) Higher initial purchase price of nuclear power.
2) Lower overall life cost by going nuclear if oil prices rise by as little as 20%
3) Nuclear ships are higher speed and cover more area so less ships required
4) Less stops to refuel in port so more time on station means less total ships required
5) Less refueling ships required which means less escorts for the refueling ships.

So in the long run I think nuclear would give more capability per dollar.

Russia has nuclear powered destroyers under construction.

The big problem is the US Navy would have to cut a LOT of other projects to afford the high initial purchase price.

Thoughts?


On a second note, I hear all of the Nimitz class carriers are entering combat with less than two thirds of the hanger space filled and less than three quarters of the seating/sleeping area's full.

Considering marines are now deployed via helicopter the US navy could retire all their old LPD's and slow down San Antonio class production. Slowing down the America class production would make more sense. Then move marine assets onto the half empty Nimitz carriers.

 

[Belesari]

I'm hearing that there is a pretty big push for more nuclear ships...

1) Higher initial purchase price of nuclear power.
2) Lower overall life cost by going nuclear if oil prices rise by as little as 20%
3) Nuclear ships are higher speed and cover more area so less ships required
4) Less stops to refuel in port so more time on station means less total ships required
5) Less refueling ships required which means less escorts for the refueling ships.

So in the long run I think nuclear would give more capability per dollar.

Russia has nuclear powered destroyers under construction.

The big problem is the US Navy would have to cut a LOT of other projects to afford the high initial purchase price.

Thoughts?


On a second note, I hear all of the Nimitz class carriers are entering combat with less than two thirds of the hanger space filled and less than three quarters of the seating/sleeping area's full.

Considering marines are now deployed via helicopter the US navy could retire all their old LPD's and slow down San Antonio class production. Slowing down the America class production would make more sense. Then move marine assets onto the half empty Nimitz carriers.

I'd say the reasons the nimitz are half empty is cost. Cut the amount of sailors you cut a huge cost %. Same as the empty VLS cells on the ships...well that and simple munitions shortage probably.

I think Nuclear powered cruisers is a great idea hell maybe destroyers too if you can bring down the size and cost of the reactors. But for now cruisers.

Their was talk about nuclear power because of the BMD requirement for DE weapons and such as well as the enormous cost in power for modern electronics and especially radars.

 

[Volkodav]

Does anyone have any info on the Litton DDM, an early 80s AEGIS destroyer concept built on the basic Spruance hull. It apparently is covered to some extent in a later edition of Friedmans US Destroyer than the copy I have and I have seen some limited info Shipbucket etc. The images I have seen are very interesting as when I first saw them I thought it was a Spanish F-100 before I realised there was a second VLS situated between the funnel and hanger and that it was in fact a much larger ship.

 

[rip]

I'm hearing that there is a pretty big push for more nuclear ships...

1) Higher initial purchase price of nuclear power.
2) Lower overall life cost by going nuclear if oil prices rise by as little as 20%
3) Nuclear ships are higher speed and cover more area so less ships required
4) Less stops to refuel in port so more time on station means less total ships required
5) Less refueling ships required which means less escorts for the refueling ships.

So in the long run I think nuclear would give more capability per dollar.

Russia has nuclear powered destroyers under construction.

The big problem is the US Navy would have to cut a LOT of other projects to afford the high initial purchase price.

Thoughts?


On a second note, I hear all of the Nimitz class carriers are entering combat with less than two thirds of the hanger space filled and less than three quarters of the seating/sleeping area's full.

Considering marines are now deployed via helicopter the US navy could retire all their old LPD's and slow down San Antonio class production. Slowing down the America class production would make more sense. Then move marine assets onto the half empty Nimitz carriers.

I know that this is not popular with the big brass in the navy so please don’t flam me for proposing it but the nuclear / gas Turbine Hybrid combination is the best long term over all solution to the future Navy needs. Use a proven submarine reactor as the base line power plant in an all-electric ship. True it does not have all the power output necessary to run a full combat surface ship and travel at a decent speed at the same time but how often do ships run at 30 plus knots? Most of the time ships travel at much slower speeds ether is escorting other ships that are speed limited, or in long distance transients running only at economical speed or on a guard or picket station of some kind going around in circles. The last time I had any good information on the subject, it took two full days to bring up a nuclear reactor from a cold start and two full days to back it back down. While gas turbines could be brought up faster than the old seam plants could ever be. One of the reasons that nuclear surface ships were not very popular in the surface community was if they were in port they could not get underway very quickly nor could you shut them down very quickly. The result was the black gang had very little down time even in port making for unhappy snips and their officers. With a hybrid solution you could bring up the nuclear plant while getting under way and then secure it before entering port while running entirely on turbines.

If the ship can supply all the power it needs to run all the system it needs to fight and still go 18 or 20 knots on nuclear power alone and can do the same on turbine power alone but still together it can go 40 knots when both are full up and running on those rare but important times when speed is critical, it is worth the added complexity of the hybrid approach and still have the reduced life time costs. The new sub reactors have a 30 year life time I believe. That is about the life time of a destroyer or curser with no long term and very expensive nuclear refueling required during its lifetime. And no R&D for a new reactor type.

I know they have done studies on this concept in the past but thing have changed since then. First back then nobody in the surface fleet wanted anything to do with Rickover’s boys for ho so many reasons. Politically it is getting harder to make regular fuelling stops in neutral countries when times get serious and there are now fewer forward bases for us to use than there was before. Both oil supply and its costs are far less reliable than they used to be. More nations are using nuclear power on their own now so there is less of a fear factor. Maybe it is time to reexamine the cost benefit issues again?

 

[gf0012-aust]

the arguments for an all nuke combat task force can't be that robust as the USN tried it in the mid 60's and soon abandoned it.

eg BigE, LongBeach, Bainbridge, Truxton + subs

to have complete benefit you'd need some nuke powered USNS assets and even then you're going to hit the wall on consumables.

eg nukes can stay and play for 70+ days using traditional rotation, but ultimately what drives the decisions to rotate are stocks of food and crew sanity. - similar issues would arise with skimmers

 

[rip]

the arguments for an all nuke combat task force can't be that robust as the USN tried it in the mid 60's and soon abandoned it.

eg BigE, LongBeach, Bainbridge, Truxton + subs

to have complete benefit you'd need some nuke powered USNS assets and even then you're going to hit the wall on consumables.

eg nukes can stay and play for 70+ days using traditional rotation, but ultimately what drives the decisions to rotate are stocks of food and crew sanity. - similar issues would arise with skimmers

I wasn’t proposing an all nuclear powered navy.

The ship has to be of a certain size and have the right mission to justify the effort and expense of nuclear power. Bigger ships are more efficient in many ways than are smaller ships but they still use allot of fuel and can carry more other consumables stores per person as well. I even went aboard the Long Beach and the Truxton a couple of times when they were still in commission. Since they were in fact first of kind nuclear ships they were way over engineered than they needed to be. The new reactors today are even safer and more reliable than they were in those days but they are also simpler and smaller for the same power output with a far longer reactor life.

The Truxton had enough k-rations on board; I was told by a friend in the crew, to last the crew for 90 days and far more available water for the crew than a conventional ship. They could usually take longer showers than on other ships that were fueled by oil.

And the Enterprise is now leaving on its last deployed, and it was and is in every way a successful ship of the line by any standard. I had a ship that escorted it into the Indian Ocean in a rush deployment during the Indian Pakistan war, the one that created Bangladesh, and it carried enough fuel oil to refuel its escorts without an accompanying tanker to get there. Just another example of where nuclear power on large ships can have a multiplying effect upon the whole fleet.

And I almost forgot. If you have nuclear reactor you can crack water to get Hydrogen (H2). You can store it and use it to run a turbine in a pinch. It doesn’t have as good energy density as jet fuel but you can replenish some of your consumable while underway if you think you need it.

 

[Belesari]

the arguments for an all nuke combat task force can't be that robust as the USN tried it in the mid 60's and soon abandoned it.

eg BigE, LongBeach, Bainbridge, Truxton + subs

to have complete benefit you'd need some nuke powered USNS assets and even then you're going to hit the wall on consumables.

eg nukes can stay and play for 70+ days using traditional rotation, but ultimately what drives the decisions to rotate are stocks of food and crew sanity. - similar issues would arise with skimmers

Yes but how much was a gallon og gas then and were we worried about where our gas came from?

Nuclear tech has come along way despite being hampered by the anti nuke crowd.

 

[Belesari]

I wasn’t proposing an all nuclear powered navy.

The ship has to be of a certain size and have the right mission to justify the effort and expense of nuclear power. Bigger ships are more efficient in many ways than are smaller ships but they still use allot of fuel and can carry more other consumables stores per person as well. I even went aboard the Long Beach and the Truxton a couple of times when they were still in commission. Since they were in fact first of kind nuclear ships they were way over engineered than they needed to be. The new reactors today are even safer and more reliable than they were in those days but they are also simpler and smaller for the same power output with a far longer reactor life.

The Truxton had enough k-rations on board; I was told by a friend in the crew, to last the crew for 90 days and far more available water for the crew than a conventional ship. They could usually take longer showers than on other ships that were fueled by oil.

And the Enterprise is now leaving on its last deployed, and it was and is in every way a successful ship of the line by any standard. I had a ship that escorted it into the Indian Ocean in a rush deployment during the Indian Pakistan war, the one that created Bangladesh, and it carried enough fuel oil to refuel its escorts without an accompanying tanker to get there. Just another example of where nuclear power on large ships can have a multiplying effect upon the whole fleet.

And I almost forgot. If you have nuclear reactor you can crack water to get Hydrogen (H2). You can store it and use it to run a turbine in a pinch. It doesn’t have as good energy density as jet fuel but you can replenish some of your consumable while underway if you think you need it.

There was a effort to get fuel by refining seawater aboard aircraft carriers. Not sure if its still continuing.