I really like the idea behind this design. the cost is way less then a carrier and the USN can split up its aviation assets over a lot more ships. we could still keep the CVGB concept and boost its combat power by orders of magnitude.
http://blogs.defensenews.com/intercepts/2013/04/hii-shows-off-new-bmd-ship-concept-at-sea-air-space/
Interesting...so aircraft would be spread around to a latge number of these ships instead of concentrated on a conceivably more vulnerable carrier?
I like that it still sports a big ass gun too.
I'm not sure it'll replace a carrier. Its design facilitates VTOL aircraft. These can be good aircraft but they don't offer the same reach as traditional carrier based craft.
The cruise missiles could make up for that, but I think most of us agree there's no substitute for having a human in the cockpit.
Quote from: LongBlade on April 11, 2013, 08:49:42 AM
I'm not sure it'll replace a carrier. Its design facilitates VTOL aircraft. These can be good aircraft but they don't offer the same reach as traditional carrier based craft.
The cruise missiles could make up for that, but I think most of us agree there's no substitute for having a human in the cockpit.
I'm sure that Marines preparing for an amphibious assault would agree, especially if they're in the mood for some effective air cover!
The Marines have their baby carrier assault ships. I'd like to see us build more of that type of ship in the 40,000 ton range with the ability to operate a decent air component and land marines. They're a nice supplement to the full size CVNs.
the assault ships we have today dont have Ageis and a VLS cells. a future carrier group composed of a CVN, 4 of these ships and 4 to 6 destroyers would be one hell of a task force. the ship is a little bigger then a Burke and a little smaller then LPD.
Assault ships escorted by a couple of Burkes and a couple of FFGs or LCS would make a nice little task force for missions that don't require a full-size CVN.
I like the BMD/Arsenal ship concept, but I can see it becoming another over-budget, one-size fits all boondoogle.
Not to mention that the French seem interested in it....
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fblogs.defensenews.com%2Fintercepts%2Ffiles%2F2013%2F04%2FBMD-ship-001-130408-SeaAirSpace-HII-Lisa-Nova-Scotia-2012-641.jpg&hash=364528e0ab543a42fb276e80eb52b1554a9d4f61)
He's try to figure out how to surrender to it. :P
That looks like a normal gun on the front. A rail gun would look more like a giant tuning fork.
I don't understand what it's purpose is. You have destroyer to patrol, carriers to deliver planes, supply ships to bring everything, subs to sneak, what is it's role? It seems like a bit of this, bit of that, specialist at nothing. If you pack all kinds of systems into every ship you get a huge bill.
The very successful general purpose air force vehicle is the F16. It does all kinds of stuff while being small and cheap. This thing does not look small and cheap.
'specially if they ever really do plop a railgun on it, and load each hold with a couple of Osprey!!
The first thing that turned me off was the 288 missile launchers. You don't pack that into every ship. You have bombers as the primary vehicle that will do that job much better. If necessary you missile subs to take it all there without being seen. So it is not really the best arsenal of ordnance.
No runway down the side. OK, VSOL and helos only. You already have the very successful Tarawa class for that.
Giant radar. Very useful on 1 or 2 destroyers, if every ship is carrying it most are off. You are paying for nothing. Why not tow a stealth blimp with the radar really high? You can attach one to whatever ship you need it on.
Like 40C I think the new rail gun should be somewhere else. It's own ship. You need a giant generator. You need a huge locker of projectiles. Its the perfect cheap area defense weapon. Park a big rail gun barge where you need it. Fire control can be on a attendant destroyer or several like a ring of spotters 500 miles away. Even recon planes or drones could say put some here. Why do you want a rail gun on every ship?
The missile numbers makes sense for ballistic missile defense. If the Chinese lob a bunch of DF-21s at a battlegroup, you don't want to be short of rounds to stop them.
USS Costoverrun
Perhaps we're starting to understand why the Navy has more Admirals than it has ships.
It is okay. The RCN building programs get into cost overrun before they are even off the drawing board, then they are cancelled with a penalty.
Quote from: mirth on April 11, 2013, 02:41:45 PM
The missile numbers makes sense for ballistic missile defense. If the Chinese lob a bunch of DF-21s at a battlegroup, you don't want to be short of rounds to stop them.
It still begs the question of putting everything into one ship.
If you are going to a place where you need a massive number of missiles why not put that specialty piece of hardware there before the carrier group arrives? Why not a flat deck MRLS type barge towed or buy a cheap freighter fill the whole thing with tubes?
Why a new custom Mercedes recreational vehicle for $200K when a lot of the stuff will not be needed for many missions? Get a $30k sedan.
I agree with you. It seems like trying to cram too much into a single hull. If dedicated ABM is needed, why worry about carrying a couple of Ospreys.
Where are the USN fanboys?
Quote from: Mr. Bigglesworth on April 11, 2013, 04:28:28 PM
It still begs the question of putting everything into one ship.
If you are going to a place where you need a massive number of missiles why not put that specialty piece of hardware there before the carrier group arrives? Why not a flat deck MRLS type barge towed or buy a cheap freighter fill the whole thing with tubes?
Why a new custom Mercedes recreational vehicle for $200K when a lot of the stuff will not be needed for many missions? Get a $30k sedan.
I dont know about you but I like the idea of our Marine assault forces having their own air defence while they get on shore. I dont think very many VLS cells, if any, would have crusie missiles. I would also submit that the future on naval combat is going to be even more missile dominated and its smarter to have each ship not only able to defend itself but contribute to the defense of the whole.
Quote from: Mr. Bigglesworth on April 11, 2013, 01:42:47 PM
That looks like a normal gun on the front. A rail gun would look more like a giant tuning fork.
I don't understand what it's purpose is. You have destroyer to patrol, carriers to deliver planes, supply ships to bring everything, subs to sneak, what is it's role? It seems like a bit of this, bit of that, specialist at nothing. If you pack all kinds of systems into every ship you get a huge bill.
actually rail guns dont look like tuning forks.
its role is to get Marines ashore while providing air defence with missiles and air support with V-22s and possibly a few J-35s. I would think that 3 or 4 of these ships together would make quite a bridgehead on a foreign shore.
Quote from: LongBlade on April 11, 2013, 08:49:42 AM
I'm not sure it'll replace a carrier. Its design facilitates VTOL aircraft. These can be good aircraft but they don't offer the same reach as traditional carrier based craft.
The cruise missiles could make up for that, but I think most of us agree there's no substitute for having a human in the cockpit.
youre forgetting that if this ship is built it will be using the VTOL F-35. the carrier version has roughly 500 miles greater range but, and this is the important thing, the Navy isnt going to be bringing carrier groups that close to shore. so the range is effectively equal.
Quote from: mirth on April 11, 2013, 04:42:35 PM
If dedicated ABM is needed, why worry about carrying a couple of Ospreys.
Well, to be truthful, pinnaces and tenders are sooo last century. :D
If you have these big systems on different platform it allows the senior officers to put in what is needed. They can also cycle out parts that need repair without sending it all home.
Now if someone got the order "Do more with fewer hulls." I can see how this type of ship would come about.
I still say if you need a massive missile battery make it seperate so you can cycle them as they empty. Unless you plan a massive invasion somewhere having your current destroyers replenished while shooting by a supply ship alongside is probably good enough for everything else.
Sometimes it seems like these companies are trying to tell the girl she needs a new dress. She is bored anyway so new fashion suits her. It does not suit the person trying to pay off the credit card.
you dont cycle VLS cells on any ship. its a one shot canister round which is why we keep putting more and more of them on ships. its also a far more survivable system then old fashion magazines. in fact, putting them around the perimeter of the ship is a hell of a lot smarter then clumping them all together as they do on Burkes and Tico's.
Quote from: GDS_Starfury on April 11, 2013, 09:33:49 PM
you dont cycle VLS cells on any ship. its a one shot canister round which is why we keep putting more and more of them on ships. its also a far more survivable system then old fashion magazines. in fact, putting them around the perimeter of the ship is a hell of a lot smarter then clumping them all together as they do on Burkes and Tico's.
Do you throw the ship away after it launches its missiles? No you remove the magazine like on an M-16. It is cycled out for a new one. You are ignoring the question of why load so many big systems on one ship. If there is a good reason lets have it.
All these functions together could lead to a chaotic ship. Accidents. On the other hand there could be some synergy if the crews become highly trained together. Would it be better than on a task force group? What about the flexibility to mix and match requirements to the mission?
1. the ship has the space and the radar so why not have as many as you can.
2. the more cells the longer the ship can stay in the fight without having to reload at sea or a base.
3. the layout makes the system as a whole smaller and less vulnerable. that same layout also makes reloading easier.
4. as with any warship different depts will take care of different aspects of the ship.
5. we train our people well. this is the US Navy not the Russian Navy.
6. flexibility is one of the hallmarks of the VLS system.
and how much is a ship like that vs a Burke?
"
As the Pentagon faces $500 billion in spending cuts over a decade that are set to begin March 1, the $37 billion program to design and build Littoral Combat Ships may become a target for reductions that would take business from Lockheed and Austal.
"The ships are costing too much," Norman Polmar, a naval analyst and author, said in an interview. "The support costs are ridiculous with two different designs."
The Littoral Combat Ship -- derided by critics inside the Navy as the "Little Crappy Ship" -- reflects the enduring influence of the "military-industrial complex" that President Dwight D. Eisenhower (http://topics.bloomberg.com/dwight-d.-eisenhower/) warned against in his 1961 farewell address. It is an example of a troubled project that has sailed on with the support of a military seeking the most advanced war- fighting equipment possible, companies eager to build it and politicians hungry for the jobs created."
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-02-21/ships-leaking-37-billion-reflect-eisenhower-s-warning.html (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-02-21/ships-leaking-37-billion-reflect-eisenhower-s-warning.html)
So that would be a 3rd version when people are complaining about the cost of the second. 52 ships for $37B so 712 million each.
Shipbuilding contracts for DDG-113 to DDG-115 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Rafael_Peralta_%28DDG-115%29) were awarded in mid-2011 for US$679.6m–$783.6m;[40] these do not include government-furnished equipment such as weapons and sensors which will take the average cost of the FY2011/12 ships to US$1,842.7m per vessel.[1]
So they are actually 1/2 the price of the Burke. Seems like a good deal.
Is it really possible a brand new ship would be 1/2 the cost of a known design (62 built)? Could this be the F16 of the navy?
for their weapon loadout they are waaay to expensive.
LCS-1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Freedom_(LCS-1)
the LCS-2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Independence_(LCS-2)
those are not fleet escort ships in any way shape or form. they are however exactly what their designated as.
So you are saying they are too light on weapons but this 3rd design corrects it?
Why not just have a modified freighter if you want an 'arsenal'. It would be a cheap delivery truck to get the ordinance in then leave. Send another. A panamax freighter is $60m with 4m/year operation cost.
http://www.sbeydo.com/maritime/Tech_memo/TM%20Vessel%20Size%20vs%20Cost_FINAL.pdf (http://www.sbeydo.com/maritime/Tech_memo/TM%20Vessel%20Size%20vs%20Cost_FINAL.pdf)
yaaa.... NO. once you add in the weapons and sensors the cost goes waaay up. nor are those ships designed to fight and take hits.
this design doesnt correct anything about the LCS nor should it. theyre different ships for different jobs.
But there is a crunch. At this price how many ships can you have? The money has to come from somewhere and they keep telling
us there is no more money. So many dollars go on fixed and increasing personnel costs. I really want you guys to have the biggest
and best of the right things. Procurement seems to be a loony bin run by the loonies.
the price in the article was $1.7 billion. not bad considering its size and about the same as a Burke class destroyer. Im not to concerned over the budget question because even if the Navy said yes today we wouldnt have these ships for at least 15 to 20 years. theres also the fact that at some point our current LPDs and LPHs are going to be retired and will need replacement.
Maybe if the construction is outsourced to China by WalMart the price will come down and do something about that annoying fraction of the debt/deficit.
that isnt all that expensive for a ship that size. please stop trying to be a smartass in every thread. if you cant contribute to some discussions just please stfu.
as to affordability we have 62 active Burkes that cost $1.8 billion each. the 22 Ticonderoga crusiers in service cost about $1 billion back in the early 90's.
Here is the VLS on a Tico. 2 batteries.
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2F6%2F6a%2FUSS_Lake_Champlain_%2528CG-57%2529.JPG%2F800px-USS_Lake_Champlain_%2528CG-57%2529.JPG&hash=3671a951af21739d19392f9b8b194bcad410478e)
Here are the holds of a container ship.
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2Fc%2Fcc%2FContainerlader%25C3%25A4ume_Schiff_retouched.jpg%2F377px-Containerlader%25C3%25A4ume_Schiff_retouched.jpg&hash=86929ee70cd9ceaeed497d899ffec985f69f0848)
But you cant do that. It doesnt look fashionably navy.
You already have. Here is the converted cargo ship you use for military vehicles.
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.navsource.org%2Farchives%2F09%2F54%2F0954029201.jpg&hash=dca1ebfcf300eb608b591435b69d0d9e15c9c29b)(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2F2%2F29%2FUSNS_Regulus.jpg&hash=051cb01a198fdfb58385a40820562dd2873a3ac4)
So I ask for the xth time why not save the money and have a missile ferry if that is what you want as a missile capability?
You can call the first one USS Ownage of the FYSU class.
personally I would rather have a lot of smaller ships. I always liked the idea of 6 to 10 Sea Shadow type ships with missiles linked to a central data net. but thats another concept for a different use. your example of a Navy ro-ro ship wont work either because once you stick missiles, guns and sensors on it the price skyrockets again. neither converted cargo ships or container ships have dedicated low observable hulls either.
Dont need sensors, its just a missile ferry.
You have other ships for other tasks.