The Evolution of the Arsenal Ship.

[Longdan]

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.

[Mr. Bigglesworth]

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.

[mirth]

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.

[Longdan]

Where are the USN fanboys?

[GDS_Starfury]

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.

[GDS_Starfury]

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.

[GDS_Starfury]

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.

[Staggerwing]

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

[Mr. Bigglesworth]

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.

[GDS_Starfury]

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.

[Mr. Bigglesworth]

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?

[GDS_Starfury]

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.

[Mr. Bigglesworth]

and how much is a ship like that vs a Burke?

[Mr. Bigglesworth]

"
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 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


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 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.

[Mr. Bigglesworth]

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?