Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
747400sp
Topic Author
Posts: 3900
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2003 7:27 pm

USN To Build Only Two DDG 1000 Class Ships

Wed Jul 30, 2008 10:37 pm

I was reading in navy time the the USN will only build two Zumwalt class ( DDG 1000) then restart the Arleigh Burke (DDG 51) line back up. It was plan for the USN to build 6 Zumwalt class DDGs, witch was design for shore bombardment. The Burke's class are more suited for carrier protection. Also Zumwalt was originally design to replace Spruance class DD, where Burke's was design to replace 50's and 60's era CG and DDG. It was stated that the money that would be save on just build two Zumwalt class ship, could go to building more San Antonio and Lewis & Clark class ships. Is the USN making a big mistake by only ordering two Zumwalt class ships?
 
Ken777
Posts: 10194
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

RE: USN To Build Only Two DDG 1000 Class Ships

Thu Jul 31, 2008 1:44 am

I believe that the two are already signed off on and at least one has started construction. While it may seem poor economics to only build two I served on the USS Long Beach (CG(N)9) in the 60s and she was the only cruiser of that design. She also did very well during the two WestPac deployments I made on her - the assigned talk being PIRAZ. (A question for Navy pilots - is the PIRAZ task still operational?) The Long Beach, however, was not designed for close in support or any other activity close to hostile land. Too large a target and too much aluminum, especially in the radar box.

I also served on a DDG for my 3rd deployment and our gunfire support was up close. Very nice views of the costal land and lots of opportunities to watch fighters make their dives. At night we anchored in Da Nang Harbor and fired about 150 rounds randomly. The ship was designed to get up close and personal, unlike the Long Beach.

From what I have read, the DDG 1000 series was more like the Long Beach and would need to stay further away from hostile land - effectively reducing the missions it could undertake. For that reason alone I'm glad that it will not be a major program.

But then I'm the type that believes we should still be keeping the USS New Jersey operational. Now that ship could get up close and personal like no other in the fleet.
 
747400sp
Topic Author
Posts: 3900
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2003 7:27 pm

RE: USN To Build Only Two DDG 1000 Class Ships

Thu Jul 31, 2008 2:49 am



Quoting Ken777 (Reply 1):
But then I'm the type that believes we should still be keeping the USS New Jersey operational. Now that ship could get up close and personal like no other in the fleet.

That would be a nice ideal, but the USS New Jersey is over 60 years old.
 
Alien
Posts: 416
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 8:00 am

RE: USN To Build Only Two DDG 1000 Class Ships

Thu Jul 31, 2008 4:36 am

The Navy got this one right. The Zumwalt's cost was out of control. The ship was not really looking like it was the great leap in capability that it should have been. One of it's main missions, gunfire support, is of greatly diminished relevance.

On the other hand, I think building the two ships as planned still give the Navy the platform and power system to enable them to use these two ships as test beds for the advanced weapons and sensors that they Navy is planning to deploy in the coming years.

The Iowa's are great ships but their time has passed. The problem is not that they are 60 years old but that they require almost 2000 sailors each to run. While they where built 65 years ago they all have less than 20 years actual service so they would be fairly easy to bring back in to service.
 
Ken777
Posts: 10194
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

RE: USN To Build Only Two DDG 1000 Class Ships

Thu Jul 31, 2008 4:19 pm

I agree that the New Jersey would be expensive to operate and is "Old Navy", but nothing compares with the fire power of those 16" guns. That is why I would still like to see one true battleship still in the fleet.
 
GDB
Posts: 14396
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

RE: USN To Build Only Two DDG 1000 Class Ships

Thu Jul 31, 2008 5:02 pm

Just been reading about this elsewhere, it sounds a procurement screw up of monumental proportions.
They might not yet even build those two either, whoever is in the White House next year will be sorely tempted to axe it.

Defence writer Stewart Slade has this to say;

At its simplest, nobody has any faith the ships will work and if they do work, nobody quite knows what they will be working for.

DDG-1000 has been a screwed program right from the start. The people behind it broke every single rule of naval design and consciously did not discuss the ship or her basic theoretical precepts with anybody. The ship was, you see, a break from the hidebound traditions of the past that tied the navy to obsolete ideas and prevented them from striding forward into the bright days of the future.

Those thirty words have doomed more naval programs than guns, torpedoes and missiles combined.

Some of the hide-bound conservative ideas they discarded included floating, moving, shooting, steering etc.

The big problem was that they changed everything in one go. They wanted new weapons, new electronics, new machinery, new crew levels, new hull design. Everything was new, everything was a major break with past practice. Of course, it all ended in tears, there's no way it could have done anything else (PS, check HPCA and you'll note I told everybody a week before the official announcement that this was going to happen).

Examples. The ship is supposed to use a radical hull form to reduce its radar cross section. . Great, only that hull form using a wave-piercing bow and tumblehome. Now, lets look at this more closely. Its a wave-piercing bow. That means it - uhhhh - pierces waves. In fact the water from the pierced wave floods over the deck, along the main deck, washes over the forward weaponry, hits the bridge and flows down the ship's side. Now, that water weighs quite a bit, several tens of tons in fact and its moving at the speed of the wave plus teh speed of the ship. That wave, when it hits the gun mount and bridge front is literally like driving into a brick wall at 60mph. The gun mount shield is made of fiberglass to reduce radar cross section. The wave also generates suction as it passes over the VLS system, sucks the doors open and floods the silos. The missiles don't like that. Spray is one thing (bad enough) but being immersed in several tons of water flowing down is quite another. Then we have the problem of the water flowing over the deck. It is strong nough to sweep men off their feet. In fact, its so dangerous that ships that operate under such conditions have to use submarine rules - nobody on deck. But to work the ship, we need people on deck. Uhhh, problem here?

Now tumblehome. This means the ship's sides slop inwards from the waterline, not outwards like normal ships do. Now, we take a slice through the ship at the waterline. That's called the ship's waterplane. There;s a thing called tons per inch immersion, the weight of water needed to sink the ship one inch. TPI is proportional to waterplane area. As the ship's waterplane area increases it requires more tons to make it sink an inch. As the waterplane decreases it requires fewer tons to make it sink per inch. Now, with a conventional flared hull, as the ship sinks in the water, its waterplane area increases, so it requires a steadily increasing rate of flooding to make the ship sink at a steady rate. If the rate of flooding does not increase, eventually the ship stops sinking. This cheers up the crew immensely.

However, with tumblehome, the waterplane area decreases as the ship sinks into the water. So, the ship will have a steadily-increasing rate of immersion at a steady rate of flooding. in short, for a steady rate of flooding, the ship sinks faster and faster. The ship will not stop sinking. This is immensely depressing.

The problem is the damage goes much further than that. As a ship with a conventional flared hull rolls, the increasing waterplane area gives her added buoyancy on the side that is submerging and gives her a moment that pushes upwards, back against the roll. That stabilizes her and she returns to an even keel. With a tumblehome hull, as the ship rolls, the decreasing waterplane area reduces buoyancy on the side that's going down, giving moment that pushes downwards in teh same direction as a roll. This destabilizes her so she rolls faster and faster until she goes over.

Having dealt with the hull design, we now move to the machinery. The DDG-1000 is supposed to have minimally-manned machinery spaces. This will save manpower etc etc etc. There's a problem, all of that automation doesn't work. Its troublesome, unreliable, extremely expensive and it needs somebody to watch it and make sure it does it's job. In fact, its useless. It gets worse. The purpose of a crew on a warship is not to make it goa round and do things. Its to try and patch the holes and put out teh fires when other warships do things to it. Repairing damage cannot be automated (did I tell you that DDG-1000 was supposed to have automated damage control systems ? Ah, forgot that but it doesn't matter, they didn't work either). So, having designed a hull that sinks if somebody looks at it crosswise, we now remove the people who were supposed to try and stop it sinking.

Now we come to the electronics. Great idea here. Put all the antennas into a single structure and we can cut RCS. That causes a problem called electronic interference. The systems all shut each other down. And they did. Very efficiently. The radar suite on DDG-1000 was the world's first self-jamming missile system. Oh, they took down the comms and gunnery fire control as well. Did I also mention that the flow noise from the wave-piercing bow was enough to prevent the sonar working? That was an easy problem to solve. Remove the sonar. Anyway easy way to solve the interference problems, use multi--functional antennas. That sounds good. One day, when they get them working, I'll let you know. MFAs are pretty good when used in their place but NOT for operating mutually incompatible systems.

The gun. Ah yes, the gun. It fires shells, 155mm ones. Guided shells whose electronics can withstand 40,000G. The acceleration in the gun barrel is 100,000G. Ooops. Problems. Then we come to the missiles. They;re in new silos, all along the deck edge. Can anybody see the problems with that? Like moment and rolling inertia? The designers couldn't which proves they know slightly less about the maritime environment than the deer currently eating the bushes outside my office window.

Now, all these problems are occurring at once and the fact that everything in the ship is new means that one can't be fixed until the rest are.

And that is why DDG-1000 got cancelled.


If only half of this is true, heads need to roll.

Then there is the LCS programme, large numbers of cheap vessels, for a range of tasks that traditional vessels are less good at, what with the focus on the littoral these days.
Look what's happened there, bidders suspended, biblical cost overruns, these cheap vessels could come out at least early on, with a Destroyer's price tag?
WTF?
(The US should have looked at vessels in this category that the Swedes have been building, then adapt and build in the US, if they could do that without more massive cost overruns).
 
baron95
Posts: 1106
Joined: Thu May 25, 2006 10:19 am

RE: USN To Build Only Two DDG 1000 Class Ships

Mon Aug 04, 2008 4:56 am



Quoting GDB (Reply 5):
And that is why DDG-1000 got cancelled.

GDB, thanks for posting that - I always thought that the DDG-1000 design had too many "moving parts" that all had to come together just right for the thing to work. I'm sad to see that they couldn't come just right. I'd like to see capable LCS ships on the fleet ASAP, and if not having DDG-1000 is the price, I'm willing to pay it.

We need ships that we are not afraid to send into harms way (i.e. close to hostile shore). That means small crew, low price tag.

Things like B2 Bombers, nuclear-powered cruisers and the like are so expensive that we never send them anywhere were they can make a difference, and when we do, we send a whole package just to protect it.
 
JayinKitsap
Posts: 2636
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 9:55 am

RE: USN To Build Only Two DDG 1000 Class Ships

Mon Aug 04, 2008 5:58 am

Well, the Navy does have a couple of good stealth vessels-submarines.
 
sprout5199
Posts: 1681
Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2005 8:26 am

RE: USN To Build Only Two DDG 1000 Class Ships

Mon Aug 04, 2008 12:07 pm



Quoting Baron95 (Reply 6):
We need ships that we are not afraid to send into harms way (i.e. close to hostile shore). That means small crew, low price tag.

Put a six inch gun on an FFG where the MK-13 launcher was. Cheap,small crew, fast.

Dan in Jupiter
 
PPVRA
Posts: 8612
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 7:48 am

RE: USN To Build Only Two DDG 1000 Class Ships

Mon Aug 04, 2008 5:57 pm



Quoting GDB (Reply 5):
The problem is the damage goes much further than that. As a ship with a conventional flared hull rolls, the increasing waterplane area gives her added buoyancy on the side that is submerging and gives her a moment that pushes upwards, back against the roll. That stabilizes her and she returns to an even keel. With a tumblehome hull, as the ship rolls, the decreasing waterplane area reduces buoyancy on the side that's going down, giving moment that pushes downwards in teh same direction as a roll. This destabilizes her so she rolls faster and faster until she goes over.

Sounds like a fine Doldrums Patrol boat to me. . .



LOL. My guess is that Lockheed and other boat builders can't sell enough boats and are coming up with creative ideas (cool looking anyways) to sell more to Washington.
 
dl021
Posts: 10836
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 12:04 pm

RE: USN To Build Only Two DDG 1000 Class Ships

Mon Aug 04, 2008 6:17 pm



Quoting Sprout5199 (Reply 8):


Quoting Baron95 (Reply 6):
We need ships that we are not afraid to send into harms way (i.e. close to hostile shore). That means small crew, low price tag.

Put a six inch gun on an FFG where the MK-13 launcher was. Cheap,small crew, fast.

That idea has been mooted, and ignored by the folks who wanted to keep the new programs rolling. A new 155mm gun on that vessel (or two) would enable the navy to have an LCS vessel for little new money, and they'd have a ready supply of spares for it (as you wouldn't need as many coastal bombardment vessels as they needed FFGs for their original mission, which is already being superseded by the DDGs.

This is similar to the Army's RAH-66 situation. Except that the RAH was working, it simply didn't have an application on the modern battlefield that couldn't be fulfilled by a less expensive alternative. The Navy is in that same boat. Pardon the expression.
 
GDB
Posts: 14396
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

RE: USN To Build Only Two DDG 1000 Class Ships

Mon Aug 04, 2008 6:46 pm

Thats not a bad idea about the USN FFG fleet.
Replace the hangar mounted Phalanx with RAM, upgrade the 76mm to 'Super Rapid' standard, (or replace with the 57mm planned for the LCS), if they are not already fitted, some crew operated cannon in the 20-30mm range.
As for the rest, the choppers and/or Fire-scout UCAVs do the rest.

The only question mark here would be the lack of speed (and manoeuvrability?) that they say the LCS needs.
Then build an adapted Swedish stealthy Corvette for the 'lower end' of the mission.
The converted FFG could act as a 'mothership' (not in the George Clinton sense though!), for the Corvettes as well as packing some heavy back up firepower.
 
LMP737
Posts: 6266
Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 4:06 pm

RE: USN To Build Only Two DDG 1000 Class Ships

Tue Aug 05, 2008 12:21 am



Quoting Baron95 (Reply 6):
Things like B2 Bombers, nuclear-powered cruisers and the like are so expensive that we never send them anywhere were they can make a difference, and when we do, we send a whole package just to protect it.

The Navy decommissioned the last of their nuke powered cruisers back in the nineties.
 
Cadet985
Posts: 2262
Joined: Sat Mar 02, 2002 6:45 am

RE: USN To Build Only Two DDG 1000 Class Ships

Tue Aug 05, 2008 4:57 am



Quoting Alien (Reply 3):
While they where built 65 years ago they all have less than 20 years actual service so they would be fairly easy to bring back in to service.

Last time I was on the USS New Jersey, I asked one of the crew members about the Navy recalling the Iowa class ships. Pretty much, the engines are maintained, but to modernize everything and get them up to today's standards would take about 18 months. Also, computers have become so prevalent, that they would need much smaller crews. We're talking about 900-1200, tops.

I had gotten this e-mail from a mailing list I'm on a couple years ago and it might be of interest to this discussion...

Quote:
Battling for battleships


By Dennis Reilly
June 21, 2005

This week, a critical decision will be made regarding the defense of the
United States as the 2006 Defense Authorization bill goes to conference.

The June 6th Op-Ed "Battleships fit for duty", made the case that our
nation needs to have the battleships Wisconsin and Iowa modernized and
reactivated. The Nov. 19, 2004 GAO report states "Marine Corps supports
the strategic purpose of reactivating two battleships in accordance with
the National Defense Authorization Act of 1996...". The Pombo bill,
would turn those ships irretrievably into museums. Irretrievably,
because, within days after that bill passes, the Navy will be all over
those ships with cutting torches to make sure that they never again can
serve.

Should we have to move against threats as North Korea, Iran, or China,
most of whom have or will have sophisticated air defenses, battleships
can provide superior support for landing or air-inserted Marines.

The Navy, in the June 13 Op-Ed, "Building a new navy" tried to counter
these assertions. However, the Navy's position supporting the DD(X)
destroyer was thoroughly refuted in the June 17 Op-Ed, "Distortions
about ships" by James O'Bryon, the official who recently bore the
responsibility in the Office of the Secretary of Defense for evaluating
the vulnerability and lethality of weapons systems.

O'Bryon also affirmed that development of precision-guided
extended-range projectiles for the battleships 16" guns was a practical
near-to-mid-term goal.

On May 19 the House Armed Services Committee abandoned the DD(X), a ship
that never could have supplied the necessary fire support.

Now the question is, "Which is more suited to the mission, battleships,
more carriers, or an even longer delayed DD(X)-derivative?" They have
complementary capabilities, but within the range of targets that will be
available to the battleship's guns, out to 115 miles in the near term,
there are some notable differences. Long-range shells will reach as far
115 miles in a life-saving time of only 3.2 min, clearly faster than
aircraft response.

Aircraft could loiter over the battlefield, but that is probably not
wise in the face of strong enemy air defenses.

Now that the troubled Joint Standoff Weapon, which would have allowed
aircraft to safely stay outside of kill zones, is in danger of being
cancelled, another option for the aircraft is about to close. When
battleships do the job, there are no lost airplanes, and, of utmost
importance, no lost airmen, no Hanoi Hilton.

Another significant advantage for the battleships is the cost in terms
of both manpower and dollars for adding additional firepower (measured
in pounds of ordnance delivered on target per day) to the fleet in
support of the mission.

According to the Navy, a modernized battleship would require a crew of
only 1100 men. A carrier, with its aircrew, requires 5500 men. The Navy
does not dispute the assertion that a battleship has firepower (weight
of ordinance deliverable per day) equivalent to two carriers for targets
within the 29 mile range of existing heavy one-ton projectiles.

This works out to the battleship (for a given level of firepower) being
10 times as manpower-efficient as the carrier. It should be noted that
North Korea and the coast of China opposite Taiwan have numerous targets
within that 29 mile range.

In terms of adding firepower to the fleet, the cost of modernizing and
reactivating a battleship is $1.5B. The cost of building the two
carriers with aircraft is about $22B, a cost advantage of fifteen to one
in favor of the battleships.

The Marines are also looking for naval surface fire support to protect
deep incursions into enemy territory via the V-22 Osprey tilt rotor
aircraft. The battleship's reach out to 115 miles exceeds the Marine's
72-mile objective by 60 percent.

Necessarily, the mass of a round that can be delivered to this longer
range is markedly less than that of a round that travels 29 miles, but
it is still a substantial 525 lb. At this range, the advantage in the
number of ships required reverses; one carrier has the firepower of two
battleships.

But, battleships retain an advantage in manpower per unit of firepower
and cost per unit of additional firepower. The manpower advantage
becomes to 2.5-to-1, and the cost advantage becomes to 3.7-to-1, still
very significant figures.

In this time of strained defense budgets, Senator Warner and Rep.
Hunter, respectively Chairmen of the Senate and House Armed Services
Committees, should not ignore such economic figures. If uncertainty
remains, the issue should be put before the Defense Science Board, but
the Pombo Bill should be removed from the 2006 Defense Authorization
Bill.

After all, there is no imminent crisis due to a shortage of battleship
museums. Then, six months from now, when work on reactivation begins,
the Nation can be assured that our Marines will be getting the support
that is their due.

Dennis Reilly is a physicist, who serves as science advisor to the
United States Naval Fire Support Association.

I would like to see the Navy either bring back the battleships, or start building new ones. The next BIG war will happen in our lifetimes, I'm sure, and its time to start preparing for it now.
 
sprout5199
Posts: 1681
Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2005 8:26 am

RE: USN To Build Only Two DDG 1000 Class Ships

Tue Aug 05, 2008 4:04 pm



Quoting GDB (Reply 11):
The only question mark here would be the lack of speed (and manoeuvrability?) that they say the LCS needs.

I don't know what the requirements are however, a FFG can do 35+ knots(been there,done that, seen it with my own eyes), and is very manoeuvrable.

Quoting GDB (Reply 11):
if they are not already fitted, some crew operated cannon in the 20-30mm range.

I know some have a 25mm chain gun on the port and starboard main decks just forward of the quarterdeck. And I believe that they adapted the TDT's to control the CIWS in addition to the 76mm gun.

Dan in Jupiter
 
dl021
Posts: 10836
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 12:04 pm

RE: USN To Build Only Two DDG 1000 Class Ships

Tue Aug 05, 2008 4:05 pm

FFGs could act as such motherships, and the mods wouldn't be terribly expensive as long as some genius didn't try to keep adding the latest and greatest stuff. Replacing the 76mm with a 57mm isnt terribly useful, but if they could squeeze in a shore bombardment 155 tube or two in place of some of the Harpoon launchers that'd be very useful. Put a harpoon unit up where the 76mm pod is and you've kept capabilty with modular upgrades.

Quoting Cadet985 (Reply 13):
computers have become so prevalent, that they would need much smaller crews. We're talking about 900-1200, tops.

Can that few execute damage control?
 
sprout5199
Posts: 1681
Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2005 8:26 am

RE: USN To Build Only Two DDG 1000 Class Ships

Tue Aug 05, 2008 4:52 pm



Quoting DL021 (Reply 15):
place of some of the Harpoon launchers that'd be very useful

The FFG's carried the Harpoons in the SM-1 mag and launched them with the MK-13 launcher, so I really don't know where you are talking about.

Quoting DL021 (Reply 15):
Put a harpoon unit up where the 76mm pod is and you've kept capabilty with modular upgrades.

Keep the 76mm mount and put the harpoons were the STIR radar was.

Quoting DL021 (Reply 15):
Can that few execute damage control?

With the armor the BB's have I wouldn't worry too much about battle damage. Fires are another thing though. But the Navy will never bring back the BB's---Not sexy enough and takes too much away from the carriers(BB's are soooo much cooler than CVN's).

Dan in Jupiter
 
GDB
Posts: 14396
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

RE: USN To Build Only Two DDG 1000 Class Ships

Tue Aug 05, 2008 5:53 pm

I still think that maintaining that BB's are still useful assets, is like saying AF's should be doing 1000 bomber raids still, WW2 style.
Was their early 80's re-commissioning as much about helping to reach Reagan's '600 ship navy' goal?

Although you cannot rule out that the USN and USMC were wanting something bigger than a 5 inch gun, after the proposed 8 inch cannon was axed a few years before.
Fitting them to a bunch of existing Destroyers and Cruisers might have made more sense.
 
Ken777
Posts: 10194
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

RE: USN To Build Only Two DDG 1000 Class Ships

Wed Aug 06, 2008 3:34 am

The BB's 16" guns provide far greater ground support for troops hitting the beach than any other ship. Supporting the troops within their range is also superior.

I saw the New Jersey while in the Navy in the late 60s and I also saw their 16" projectiles on a pier waiting to be loaded onto her. The AF or carrier based planes can't do the job that a BB can, just as the BBs can't change positions as fast as a fighter.

Both have their places in troop support. It's just sad that our boots on the ground are missing this important piece of support.
 
rwessel
Posts: 2448
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2007 3:47 pm

RE: USN To Build Only Two DDG 1000 Class Ships

Wed Aug 06, 2008 4:52 am



Quoting Ken777 (Reply 18):
The BB's 16" guns provide far greater ground support for troops hitting the beach than any other ship. Supporting the troops within their range is also superior.

Just to play devil's advocate, there are people who argue that it's highly unlikely that the US will ever conduct another large scale amphibious landing on a well defended shore. The modern sensitivity to casualties makes it almost unthinkable. Of course the Corps continues to train for that mission.

And our ability to land troops a few miles inland is vastly increased since WWII and Korea. Which has many advantages tactically, since it prevents the enemy from concentrating their defenses.
 
XT6Wagon
Posts: 2746
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 4:06 pm

RE: USN To Build Only Two DDG 1000 Class Ships

Wed Aug 06, 2008 5:41 am



Quoting Ken777 (Reply 18):
The BB's 16" guns provide far greater ground support for troops hitting the beach than any other ship. Supporting the troops within their range is also superior.

Other things to think on. Modern missiles are designed around un-armored ships. So much so I doubt a modern carrier group could SINK a battleship till they blasted the entire superstructure to scrap so that they could nail it with iron bombs safely.

They found out real quick in the early days of anti-ship missiles that any of them capible of penetrating armor... would fail to hurt an un-armored ship unless you nail something real solid inside like the powerplant. Just hit crew quarters and the like and the missile will penetrate through the ship and explode somewhere outside past it.

The battleship has also proven to be THE way to engage anything within range of its guns. If you get a single battleship close enough to an entire carrier group, guess what? No more carrier group. WWII is a terrible terrible example of the value of battleships vs carriers since often the battleships got waxed when outside of aircover, and the times that they did get close to the carriers they bitched out and left instead of getting the job done. So we have no examples of what exactly happens if you work a combined fleet of carriers and battleships properly. Imagine in WWII if a couple BB's got into range of a carrier group... say in the middle of the night when planes are useless. Would you want to be stuck with only DD's covering your very expensive carriers with thier very expensive planes, and thier very expensive crews? Would you want to be on the carrier that recieves a whole squadrons worth of explosives in less than a minute and continue to do so for over an hour straight? To face shells that no AA in the world can even annoy?

Its true today. What the hell is a SAM or point defense gun going to do to a 16" shell? Say you can take out the HE shells that way. Who runs out of ammo first? The BB or the target? Why wouldn't the BB switch to AP shot (solid) which would just ignore such defense. Which would ignore anything on the other ship has on its way through. In this long range is to the BB's advantage given that plunging fire is a nice way to poke holes below the waterline.

Now I don't think reactivating the Iowa class is the correct thing to do given thier age and the cost/benifit to modernizing them. But how about taking the basic hull form, cleaning it up with a computer. Do a new superstucture designed for lower radar cross section and better capibility. New turrets with MODERN 21st century 16" guns say 75+ calibers long 2 per turret, 2 turrets. One fore, one aft. Throw in a well sorted mix of vertical launch SAM, Goalkeeper, and and CWIS. Antisub would be handled by armor and other passive systems since lets face it battleships are a terrible platform to use for anti-sub use. I'd assume a frigate group for this would be used for protection at a minimum.

On the guns, smaller than 16" might actualy be better, but lets face it procurment is often more about penis size and ego stroking than real needs. I doubt you could convince someone to do a new battleship with "pop guns" even if its better.
 
User avatar
Tugger
Posts: 11484
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:38 am

RE: USN To Build Only Two DDG 1000 Class Ships

Wed Aug 06, 2008 6:42 am



Quoting GDB (Reply 5):
with a conventional flared hull, as the ship sinks in the water, its waterplane area increases, so it requires a steadily increasing rate of flooding to make the ship sink at a steady rate. If the rate of flooding does not increase, eventually the ship stops sinking. This cheers up the crew immensely.

However, with tumblehome, the waterplane area decreases as the ship sinks into the water. So, the ship will have a steadily-increasing rate of immersion at a steady rate of flooding. in short, for a steady rate of flooding, the ship sinks faster and faster. The ship will not stop sinking. This is immensely depressing.

Gotta admit, tumblehome DDX does sound very depressing. Love the descriptions!

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 20):
Other things to think on. Modern missiles are designed around un-armored ships. So much so I doubt a modern carrier group could SINK a battleship till they blasted the entire superstructure to scrap so that they could nail it with iron bombs safely.

They found out real quick in the early days of anti-ship missiles that any of them capible of penetrating armor... would fail to hurt an un-armored ship unless you nail something real solid inside like the powerplant. Just hit crew quarters and the like and the missile will penetrate through the ship and explode somewhere outside past it.

Uhhh... no.

Now you HAVE to go check out this website if only for the very first pic on it:
http://www.geocities.com/transformationunderfire/highexplosives.htm
I was looking for info on anti-ship missiles and found the site which seems to have EVERYTHING on high explosive bombs.

But I digress, modern anti-ship missiles are not just "hit the ship" missiles, they fly just above the waves-tops and when nearing the go up, then straight down (relatively) into the ship to break its back deep within the ship. And they are designed to delay detonation a fraction of a second to ensure this. Even if they do go through the bottom they explode under the ship which also breaks its back (that's what torpedo's do to, either detonate under the ship - which is what you would do with a battleship and just avoid its armored belt - or pierce the hull then explode). Another neat trick is if they are set to detonate just above the deck - either flying across the ship or coming down into it - and scatter bomblets down into the superstructure and deck.

Missiles are very mean, especially when they are the big ship-to-ship or shore launched ones.

Tugg
 
rwessel
Posts: 2448
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2007 3:47 pm

RE: USN To Build Only Two DDG 1000 Class Ships

Wed Aug 06, 2008 6:44 am



Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 20):
Other things to think on. Modern missiles are designed around un-armored ships. So much so I doubt a modern carrier group could SINK a battleship till they blasted the entire superstructure to scrap so that they could nail it with iron bombs safely.

Yet that superstructure would be ruined long before the BB came into range. Three or four escorts could put 100+ Harpoons on an Iowa while it was still 50 miles out, not counting any air support. And with the superstructure wreaked, what happens to fire control?

Then you have to remember that no BB was ever armored the same in all directions. Specifically, the armored deck(s) are far thinner than the main belts, since BBs were rarely subjected to shells with a steep incoming trajectory ("plunging fire"). While penetrating the 12+ inches of the main belt is one thing, the armor deck on an Iowa is only 6 inches. Even the main belt would loose some effectiveness against a missile, since it's designed (sloped) to be most effective against a shell with a moderate downward trajectory, not a almost horizontal impact from a missile. Reprogramming a Harpoon to pop up 10,000ft before a near vertical dive into the target ought to be pretty straight forward.

And then as you said, armor piercing missiles up to the task of punching through the main belt are not going to be that difficult to develop. But up to now nobody's bothered, since there are targets for such a weapon. A missile can easily have a much higher arrival velocity than the shell's a BB's armor was designed against. Consider the Mach 2.5 SS-N-19 Shipwreck, with a 750kg warhead (although admittedly a Shipwreck's a heck of a lot bigger than a Harpoon). Adding a big AP penetrator to the front of something like that would not be a big challenge.

If BBs (or other heavily armored ships) became popular again, you can bet that people *would* develop and deploy such things. The Shipwreck is a case in point. The U.S. never developed such a thing because there was nothing that we needed to sink that required that big a missile. The Soviets, OTOH, had a need to inflict severe damage on very large, and quite tough, ships (eg. The U.S. carriers) from long ranges, hence the 300 mile, Mach 2.5 (at sea level – M4.5 up high), Shipwreck, and a long line of other long range anti-ship cruise missiles.

And finally BBs are just as vulnerable to torpedoes as anything else. Most carrier battle groups have a sub or two in attendance.
 
LMP737
Posts: 6266
Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 4:06 pm

RE: USN To Build Only Two DDG 1000 Class Ships

Thu Aug 07, 2008 12:39 am



Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 20):
The battleship has also proven to be THE way to engage anything within range of its guns. If you get a single battleship close enough to an entire carrier group, guess what? No more carrier group. WWII is a terrible terrible example of the value of battleships vs carriers since often the battleships got waxed when outside of aircover, and the times that they did get close to the carriers they bitched out and left instead of getting the job done. So we have no examples of what exactly happens if you work a combined fleet of carriers and battleships properly

WWII is a perfect example of the value of carriers vs. battleships. Just compare the number of battleships sunk by planes from aircraft carriers to that of aircraft carriers sunk by battleships. You said it yourself when you said battleships were waxed without air cover. The two most powerful battleships in the world, Yamato an Musashi, were sent to the bottom by carrier based aircraft.

The reason we have no examples of what happens if you work a combined fleet of carriers and battleships is that carrier aircraft usually tore the enemy to pieces before they ever got close.
 
baron95
Posts: 1106
Joined: Thu May 25, 2006 10:19 am

RE: USN To Build Only Two DDG 1000 Class Ships

Thu Aug 07, 2008 5:14 am



Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 20):
If you get a single battleship close enough to an entire carrier group, guess what? No more carrier group.

That is a *HUGE* "if". I can't imagine ANY scenario where a hostile battleship in war times would get within 29 miles of a US carrier. I can't even imagine a plane getting within that distance, let alone a battleship. And if you think a battleship would survive a missile/torpedo attack by the carriers submarine/surface/airborne escorts, you are smoking something very powerful. Battleships would be easily sunk by any of those. Just think of it. Battleships and battlecruiser (remember the Hood) have been blown out of the water by one or two naval shells (1 ton -tops). Even a 2,000lbs laser guided bomb (not sugesting we'd use that against a ship) packs more punch.

Battleships have been removed fom service, precisely because they are easy to hit by more mobile assets (submarines, missile surface escorts, helos, airwings of a carrier).

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 18):
The BB's 16" guns provide far greater ground support for troops hitting the beach than any other ship.

I can't think of ANY scenario where US troops would attempt to land on-shore in large numbers under heavy and concentrated fire (the type that can be engaged by Battleship guns). This makes absolutely no sense. We'd clear the concentrated fire, way before any troops go on-shore.

Quoting LMP737 (Reply 12):
The Navy decommissioned the last of their nuke powered cruisers back in the nineties.

Yes, BUT, congress has put language in defence budget and appropriations bills calling for ALL future cruisers, etc to be NUCLEAR POWERED.
http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/1207/121707g1.htm
 
sprout5199
Posts: 1681
Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2005 8:26 am

RE: USN To Build Only Two DDG 1000 Class Ships

Thu Aug 07, 2008 12:19 pm



Quoting Baron95 (Reply 24):
(remember the Hood)

The Hood sacrificed armour for speed. That is why she was sunk so fast.

Quoting Baron95 (Reply 24):
Battleships have been removed fom service, precisely because they are easy to hit by more mobile assets (submarines, missile surface escorts, helos, airwings of a carrier).

They were removed from service due to the cost of running them. I remember when the Mighty MO sail into the Persian Gulf in 1987, the Capt was asked what he would do if the Iranians launched a Silkworm missile at her-- his response, "I would pass sweepers"(passing sweepers means announcing on the PA system"sweepers,sweepers man your brooms, give the ship a clean sweep down both fore and aft, sweep decks all lower decks, ladderbacks, and passageways, dump all trash clear of the stern, now sweepers" Remember that all you squids?)

Quoting Baron95 (Reply 24):
I can't think of ANY scenario where US troops would attempt to land on-shore in large numbers under heavy and concentrated fire (the type that can be engaged by Battleship guns). This makes absolutely no sense. We'd clear the concentrated fire, way before any troops go on-shore.

Thats what they said after D-day, but a few years later along comes Inchon. Dont forget the little thing called the Falklands war(a small landing per-say but a landing.) Just because neither you or I can not think of one doesn't mean it won't be one.

Dan in Jupiter
 
GDB
Posts: 14396
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

RE: USN To Build Only Two DDG 1000 Class Ships

Thu Aug 07, 2008 5:12 pm

Would the Capt of that BB just get sweepers out if the said missiles hit the Harpoons, or Tomahawks, or even a twin 5 inch gun turret?

One did come under missile attack in 1991, but the weapon missed, (the BB's phanlax were firing at clouds of chaff though).
A RN Type 42 Destroyer downed the SSM with a Sea Dart.
 
sprout5199
Posts: 1681
Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2005 8:26 am

RE: USN To Build Only Two DDG 1000 Class Ships

Thu Aug 07, 2008 5:26 pm



Quoting GDB (Reply 26):
Would the Capt of that BB just get sweepers out if the said missiles hit the Harpoons, or Tomahawks, or even a twin 5 inch gun turret?

IIRC the silkworm carried more explosives Harpoons or Tomahawks. And a 5" gun probably wouldn't hurt it too much

Quoting GDB (Reply 26):
A RN Type 42 Destroyer downed the SSM with a Sea Dart.

I think that was the first SAM to SSM engagement. It fired after a SAM from a FFG missed.

Dan in Jupiter
 
GDB
Posts: 14396
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

RE: USN To Build Only Two DDG 1000 Class Ships

Thu Aug 07, 2008 6:05 pm

Indeed Sprout, not a target like a sea-skimmer, but a notable first all the same.
(No doubt aided by mods to the system after experience in the South Atlantic).

What I am really getting at is, while it's hard to see an ASM sinking or seriously disabling a BB, a 'mission kill' is possible, causing enough damage in the sorts of conflicts today, to force it to withdraw.
 
sprout5199
Posts: 1681
Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2005 8:26 am

RE: USN To Build Only Two DDG 1000 Class Ships

Thu Aug 07, 2008 7:33 pm



Quoting GDB (Reply 28):
What I am really getting at is, while it's hard to see an ASM sinking or seriously disabling a BB, a 'mission kill' is possible, causing enough damage in the sorts of conflicts today, to force it to withdraw.

And that is one of the problems of today. If one sailor gets killed, the whole world knows about it and wants the US to run away. Many ships in WWII took many hits but continued on. When the #2 turret on the Iowa exploded, I remember the CO stating that they were still mission capable, just down 1 turret(I know, 1/3 of the firepower gone) but the news kept saying she was "badly damaged, and needs to be in dry dock". If a BB was hit, and say lost her radars, she still has the optical sights, and the original mechanical computers(which IIRC the navy was going to replace, however they found out that the old ones actually worked better than the new "high tech" ones due to the shock of firing the guns). The rest of the BBBG would have radars for support. which also brings up another point, that the BB would never sail alone, maybe with a DDG or CG as AAW support.

Dan in Jupiter
 
dl021
Posts: 10836
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 12:04 pm

RE: USN To Build Only Two DDG 1000 Class Ships

Fri Aug 08, 2008 3:03 am



Quoting Sprout5199 (Reply 16):
The FFG's carried the Harpoons in the SM-1 mag and launched them with the MK-13 launcher, so I really don't know where you are talking about.

I had the harpoons on the DDs in my head. Sorry about that.

SInce the MK13 launcher is gone now with the mid range SM-1 why not replace that entire piece with a 6" gun, replace the 76mm with harpoon launchers and replace the phalanx with the RAM?

Would that be offsetting to the balance of the ship? Overload anything?


You're right about the BBs never going back to sea. One more problem in addition to the cost of running the ship was that she needed her own escort group, and we're running out of vessels once the CV and LH groups are all escorted.
 
baron95
Posts: 1106
Joined: Thu May 25, 2006 10:19 am

RE: USN To Build Only Two DDG 1000 Class Ships

Fri Aug 08, 2008 3:10 am



Quoting Sprout5199 (Reply 25):
but a few years later along comes Inchon

You mean FIFTY_FIVE YEARS AGO???!!!!????? You mean when propeller planes (P51s, P38s and B29s) were still flyin the majority of the sorties for invasion prep?

Yes, that is a really good scenario to plan for - it is really, really likely to happen.

Quoting Sprout5199 (Reply 27):
IIRC the silkworm carried more explosives Harpoons or Tomahawks. And a 5" gun probably wouldn't hurt it too much

I think he meant an incoming modern missile hitting the Iowa from the top on the Tomohawh vertical launch tubes area. That would of course be devastating to the IOWA class.
 
User avatar
Tugger
Posts: 11484
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:38 am

RE: USN To Build Only Two DDG 1000 Class Ships

Fri Aug 08, 2008 4:24 am



Quoting Baron95 (Reply 31):
I think he meant an incoming modern missile hitting the Iowa from the top on the Tomohawh vertical launch tubes area. That would of course be devastating to the IOWA class.

If you devastate the guidance arrays, the radar, sat links, etc. you destroy a ships ability to find its targets and aim. With that a battleship is not very useful.

I think the days as a key capital naval asset are gone. It does however have an excellent supporting role for shore and inland bombardment.

Tugg
 
bilgerat
Posts: 250
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 6:43 pm

RE: USN To Build Only Two DDG 1000 Class Ships

Fri Aug 08, 2008 10:11 pm



Quoting GDB (Reply 5):
The DDG-1000 is supposed to have minimally-manned machinery spaces. This will save manpower etc etc etc. There's a problem, all of that automation doesn't work. Its troublesome, unreliable, extremely expensive and it needs somebody to watch it and make sure it does it's job. In fact, its useless.

That's a little harsh from Mr Slade. As someone who has sailed as an engineer officer on vessels with both minimal automation and a high degree of automation (ie a "UMS" vessel) I can tell you the UMS system is much more efficient and easier to operate. How well the system works depends on how well it is designed and maintained. The only thing I don't like about it is being woken up at 4am because the fridges are 0.4 degrees above normal temperature! Having said that there is no real substitute for having someone actually in the spaces using their eyes/hearing/touch/smell to monitor the machinery.

Having said that we did have one episode lasting a couple of weeks where we would get spurious alarms during the UMS periods, and on one occasion I got over 40 alarms in the course of one night. We eventually tracked the problem down to an MCAS computer outstation in the engineer's office with it's time 20 mins out of sync with the other outstations in the network.

Quoting GDB (Reply 5):
he purpose of a crew on a warship is not to make it goa round and do things. Its to try and patch the holes and put out teh fires when other warships do things to it.

This is very true. I was on RFA Wave Knight earlier this year and we had a crew of 70. We had problems getting enough people to make fire teams and found in exercises that we very rapidly run out of available bodies as more incidents were thrown in. You can probably live with this on an auxiliary vessel that is not supposed to be in the line of fire, but for a warship it's tantamount to suicide.
 
sprout5199
Posts: 1681
Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2005 8:26 am

RE: USN To Build Only Two DDG 1000 Class Ships

Fri Aug 08, 2008 11:57 pm



Quoting Baron95 (Reply 31):
I think he meant an incoming modern missile hitting the Iowa from the top on the Tomohawh vertical launch tubes area. That would of course be devastating to the IOWA class.

Devastating? No, would it hurt her yes, but not devastating, she could still fight. However, the same missile hitting a modern warship would sink it. The BB's were designed to take a 16" shell hit. The armour on them ranges from 5" to 19" thick depending on where it is.

Quoting Baron95 (Reply 31):
Yes, that is a really good scenario to plan for - it is really, really likely to happen.

And the day you don't plan for it is the day you need to do it.

Quoting DL021 (Reply 30):
SInce the MK13 launcher is gone now with the mid range SM-1 why not replace that entire piece with a 6" gun, replace the 76mm with harpoon launchers and replace the phalanx with the RAM?

I would keep the 76mm gun(great weapon system, hardly ever went down, VERY accurate, high rate of fire--80 rounds a min) and put the 'Poons on the forecastle behind the gun.

Quoting DL021 (Reply 30):
Would that be offsetting to the balance of the ship? Overload anything?

I think the gun would weigh less than the MK-13, and I think the RAM weighs less then the CIWS. ALAS the Navy would never do this, 1 the Perry's are getting old(youngest is 20 I think) and its not sexy enough, even though they were one of the most successful lines of ships built, taking in to account what they were designed to do any how they were built(low $$, fast construction, on time and on budget, first real "minimum manned" ship). The navy wants all the ships to be AEGIS, VLS, Stealthy, but forgetting that a jack of all trades is a master of none. A gun only platform based on the Perry hull(but all steel if possible) using all the good of them, and fixing all the bad would make a lot of sense.

Dan in Jupiter
 
nomadd22
Posts: 1572
Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2008 7:42 pm

RE: USN To Build Only Two DDG 1000 Class Ships

Sat Aug 09, 2008 12:16 am

We never had any trouble with the automated trouble reporting on my 378 in the early 80s. They'd always automatically wake me up first whenever our Truman era radars took a break.

Quoting Sprout5199 (Reply 34):
The armour on them ranges from 5" to 19" thick depending on where it is.

As I understood it, the armor never really exceeded 12" on the Joisey classes. The 19" claim came from the distance a round would have to penetrate if it hit the hull at a 50 degree angle somebody came up with as the most likely.
 
baron95
Posts: 1106
Joined: Thu May 25, 2006 10:19 am

RE: USN To Build Only Two DDG 1000 Class Ships

Sat Aug 09, 2008 4:08 am

I think automation is the way to go. I disagree that it is a drawback in any case, even when it comes to battle damage. A B52 has a crew of 5 (used to be 6), a B2 has a crew of 2.

The navy should be able to realize the same 2-3x crew reduction with easy.

If a Virgiia-class sub can be operated with a crew of 130 for months at a time, a DDG should have a crew of 100 or so. More than that is a waste.

If a ship in a battle group suffers battle damage, we can off-load 100 sailors to other ships, continue the fight and move on or we can have damage control team from the other ships help out as needed (yes, I know that some damage requires quick action and it is hard to get people onto a damaged ship). These incidents of a crew saving a ship because they had extra bodies to throw at the damage is a myth.

I hope we are not proposing to put a single extra soul o board a navy fighting ship "just to be there as spare manpower i case we take damage". We try to make sure a B2 is not picked up, but if a B2, which costs more than some navy fighting ships takes damage, the pilots punch out, get picked up (hopefully) and we move on. The navy should think the same way about their smaller fighting ships (DDGs, Frigates, LCS, attack subs).

The more we automate, the less people we have on-board, the least expensive (cost and cost of lives) a ship is, and the more likely it is to be employed to its full extent.
 
Ken777
Posts: 10194
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

RE: USN To Build Only Two DDG 1000 Class Ships

Sat Aug 09, 2008 4:43 am



Quoting BilgeRat (Reply 33):
You can probably live with this on an auxiliary vessel that is not supposed to be in the line of fire, but for a warship it's tantamount to suicide.

I'm of the belief that the explosives carried on a war ship or an auxiliary ship should be one factor that determines the DC teams needed. When I was on a DDG we participated in a firing exercise after the Evans was decommissioned. Three DDGs firing, to be followed by torpedo runs and expected to take an hour or so. With water tight doors closed and no explosives or fuel the rear half of the Evans held long enough that we eventually took a break for lunch. I think it was about 3 PM before she started to sink and then she went down too fast for the torpedo runs. Explosive materials make a huge difference in the needs for DC teams.

Quoting Baron95 (Reply 36):
These incidents of a crew saving a ship because they had extra bodies to throw at the damage is a myth.

We had one major fire on the Long Beach in the Tonkin Gulf that gave us a temp in Talos mags above critical. In front of them was the mags for the 5"s, then two reactors. There wass no myth in the benefit of having generously staffed and outstanding DC teams in that fire, or in the other two major fires we had while I served on her.

I tend to go for generous personnel levels on a Naval ship, especially when deployed. I've seen too many times when personnel left the ship on short notice for emergency leave, airlifted out for illness the ship's doc couldn't handle, etc. I also believe more than a minimum staffing provides an opportunity for cross training, etc.
 
sprout5199
Posts: 1681
Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2005 8:26 am

RE: USN To Build Only Two DDG 1000 Class Ships

Sat Aug 09, 2008 4:56 am



Quoting Baron95 (Reply 36):

Baron, you can not compare a ship to an aircraft.

Quoting Baron95 (Reply 36):
I hope we are not proposing to put a single extra soul o board a navy fighting ship "just to be there as spare manpower i case we take damage".

There is nobody onboard a ship that is extra. We cross trained so we could fight fires, repair damage, dewater spaces and such.

Quoting Baron95 (Reply 36):
If a Virgiia-class sub can be operated with a crew of 130 for months at a time, a DDG should have a crew of 100 or so. More than that is a waste.

Just like you can not compare a ship to an aircraft, you can not compare a ship to a sub. sub maintenance is done by a shore crew, a ships maintenance is done by her crew. I was on an FFG and we had at the most 200 men and we were having a tough time just keeping her in shape and running good. Between standing watches,fixing gear, and painting/repairing the ship it self, some times we were stretched thin.

Quoting Baron95 (Reply 36):
These incidents of a crew saving a ship because they had extra bodies to throw at the damage is a myth.

I know the guys on the Stark and on the Roberts were to the point of dropping due to fatigue when they were saving the ships. Fighting a fire takes a lot out of you, I fought a small fire in our main engine room once and was beat after 10 minutes due to the heat and the weight of the OBA's and hoses. The more bodies you have the easier it is.

Quoting Baron95 (Reply 36):
the pilots punch out, get picked up (hopefully) and we move on. The navy should think the same way about their smaller fighting ships (DDGs, Frigates, LCS, attack subs).

If the Navy did that, we would be losing ships as fast as the air force loses aircraft. How much would it cost if we lost 10 ships a year.

Dan in Jupiter
 
bilgerat
Posts: 250
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 6:43 pm

RE: USN To Build Only Two DDG 1000 Class Ships

Sat Aug 09, 2008 11:23 am



Quoting Baron95 (Reply 36):
These incidents of a crew saving a ship because they had extra bodies to throw at the damage is a myth.

Not at all. When the brown stuff hits rotating machinery the biggest asset on board is trained crew members. It gives the vessel's emergency organisation a great deal of flexibility and the ability to react to developing situations. Fires don't put themselves out and flooding doesn't stop by itself.

As for the notion of moving people between ships during battle, well that idea is a non starter. How will you move them? By boat or helicopter? In a battle or combat situation? Moving 100 people between ships at sea is a big deal and not something you want to be doing when the lead is flying. Likewise you can't assume the personnel being transferred are familiar with the vessel you are moving them to, which severely limits the effectiveness of fire and damage control teams - how can you expect a fire or DC team to find their way in the pitch dark on a ship they are not familiar with? This is difficult enough for people who are familiar with the ship!
 
747400sp
Topic Author
Posts: 3900
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2003 7:27 pm

RE: USN To Build Only Two DDG 1000 Class Ships

Tue Aug 19, 2008 12:50 am



Quoting Sprout5199 (Reply 38):
If the Navy did that, we would be losing ships as fast as the air force loses aircraft. How much would it cost if we lost 10 ships a year.

Dan in Jupiter

With the price tag of a carrier the USN would go broke!
 
astuteman
Posts: 7439
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: USN To Build Only Two DDG 1000 Class Ships

Tue Aug 19, 2008 5:30 am



Quoting Sprout5199 (Reply 38):
Just like you can not compare a ship to an aircraft, you can not compare a ship to a sub. sub maintenance is done by a shore crew, a ships maintenance is done by her crew.

In the sense that the crew size on a nuclear submarine is driven by maintenance needs in the same way that a surface combatant's is, you CAN compare them.
Surface ships tend not to do 3 month long cruises with NO access whatsoever to the outside world.
Submariners do a LOT of maintenance...  yes 

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 37):
I tend to go for generous personnel levels on a Naval ship, especially when deployed. I've seen too many times when personnel left the ship on short notice for emergency leave, airlifted out for illness the ship's doc couldn't handle, etc. I also believe more than a minimum staffing provides an opportunity for cross training, etc.

 checkmark 
The myth that you can significantly reduce a warships crew through automation is exactly that. Incremental savings can be made, but not wholesale ones..

Rgds
 
baron95
Posts: 1106
Joined: Thu May 25, 2006 10:19 am

RE: USN To Build Only Two DDG 1000 Class Ships

Tue Aug 19, 2008 8:36 am



Quoting Sprout5199 (Reply 38):
sub maintenance is done by a shore crew, a ships maintenance is done by her crew.

Why????!!!!!??? Why can't a ship be on patrol for months and then go for maintenance like a Sub? Are'nt you embarassed that a Virginia class nuclear sub can take care of itself with 130 sailors and yes 200 man can not take care of a Frigate? This is utter navy nonsense. Just because it is so today, does not mean it is the best way of doing it.

Quoting Sprout5199 (Reply 38):
If the Navy did that, we would be losing ships as fast as the air force loses aircraft. How much would it cost if we lost 10 ships a year.

First, the USAF does not lose planes at that rate.We lose a handful out of thousands of planes a year. So the Navy, if it lost ships at the same rate, would lose a handful every decade. I think that is manageable if it means having more, less expensive ships with half the current crew levels. It is still a net saving. Having said that, obviously ships can and should have lower loss rates than planes. We don't go losing nuclear subs left and right, yet, they have a crew that is a raction of a nuclear navy surface ship and probably all the navy surface combat ships. why?

What is the difference in losing a $2B B2 Bomber or losing a $1B DDG? I tell you the difference. In the first case, you have to rescue or burry a crew of 2-4. In the second case, you have to rescue or burry a crew of 200-400.
 
baron95
Posts: 1106
Joined: Thu May 25, 2006 10:19 am

RE: USN To Build Only Two DDG 1000 Class Ships

Tue Aug 19, 2008 8:48 am



Quoting Astuteman (Reply 41):
Incremental savings can be made, but not wholesale ones..

I'm not sure about that. How many crew members do we save when we go from manual loading of 16"guns to maintenance free (during a cruise at least) VL missile tubes? How many crew members do we save when we go from 2 5"guns to a single self loading gun or to an all missile ship? These are all quantum leaps in manpower savings.

I ckearly think that 50 years from now a newly comissioned navy surface ship (not a carrier) will have just a few dozen crew. The only question is how fast we get there.
 
nomadd22
Posts: 1572
Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2008 7:42 pm

RE: USN To Build Only Two DDG 1000 Class Ships

Tue Aug 19, 2008 11:53 am

I seem to remember that most of the reason we had more personel than we needed most times was for the weeks we'd be on full combat status, when you'd need two complete rotating crews. I'd be declared a radar operator for 12 hour shifts and get to do the maintenence and repairs when I was suppose to be off duty or whenever I could tie some Ensign to the radar for a while. Keeping a ship manned for combat is a helluva a lot different than keeping it manned for sailing around the ocean.
 
Ken777
Posts: 10194
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

RE: USN To Build Only Two DDG 1000 Class Ships

Tue Aug 19, 2008 1:39 pm



Quoting Baron95 (Reply 43):
How many crew members do we save when we go from manual loading of 16"guns to maintenance free (during a cruise at least) VL missile tubes? How many crew members do we save when we go from 2 5"guns to a single self loading gun or to an all missile ship? These are all quantum leaps in manpower savings.

I ckearly think that 50 years from now a newly comissioned navy surface ship (not a carrier) will have just a few dozen crew. The only question is how fast we get there.

You save fewer than you think. There are lots of departments in a naval ship, like Supply, that need to be manned and carry out their tasks. Let's take Supply, limit it to one officer for the Supply Officer and then one sailor for each core function.

That gives you one cook? Working 5 AM to midnight? No days off, no leave, etc. Same with Payroll, Parts, etc.

Doesn't work. Staffing needs to ensure that functions can be carried out of any one individual is lost. That means back-up and cross training when possible.

There is also a need to have career development and in the Navy that means sea duty. Departments like Engineering need personnel at various levels of training and experience - that's the only way to ensure those at the lower levels get the training & experience to reach the upper levels.
 
LMP737
Posts: 6266
Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 4:06 pm

RE: USN To Build Only Two DDG 1000 Class Ships

Tue Aug 19, 2008 3:49 pm



Quoting Baron95 (Reply 42):
Why????!!!!!??? Why can't a ship be on patrol for months and then go for maintenance like a Sub? Are'nt you embarassed that a Virginia class nuclear sub can take care of itself with 130 sailors and yes 200 man can not take care of a Frigate? This is utter navy nonsense. Just because it is so today, does not mean it is the best way of doing it.

Because a nuclear powered attack submarine is much more complex piece of machinery that FFG-7 class frigate. You kind of answered your own question by pointing out the differences in manning levels between the two.
 
astuteman
Posts: 7439
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: USN To Build Only Two DDG 1000 Class Ships

Tue Aug 19, 2008 4:10 pm



Quoting LMP737 (Reply 46):
Because a nuclear powered attack submarine is much more complex piece of machinery that FFG-7 class frigate

 yes 
At least you can actually GET 200 people in an FFG-7...  biggrin 

Rgds
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 10975
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: USN To Build Only Two DDG 1000 Class Ships

Tue Aug 19, 2008 6:13 pm

How many men man the boilers in a nuke sub, help with the refuelling, ensure that the fuel tanks are full, etc. etc. The nuke subs heralded much automation in naval vessels, its one of the reasons why the US Navy also built nuke cruisers, however, the fell out of favour and most I believe were retired before their reactors gave out.

The New DDG for the Navy fell through because they were not for the Navy, but for the "Military Industrial Complex", ship building has been around for years, what exactly makes a billion dollar Aegis Destroyer and who in their right mind would park a billion dollar asset off the coast of some tin pot nation with a few Silkworm missiles? The Burkes have one of the most sophisticated defense systems in the world, how many SAM's does her mags. carry, probably end up relying on the Phalanx for protection in a missile environment as they run out real quick and the technology is not yet one shot one kill. When you consider all the new fancy things they want to put in these new ships one has to ask the question why, even the new LCS which are supposed to work close inshore, would they be in range of 155mm guns systems?

Navy probably need to cancel the entire project including the two already funded and hope the contractors now and in future pay more attention to what the Navy needs and not what they need the Navy to pay for, schools, education, bonus's, alimony, child support, cars, homes, etc. etc. etc.
 
astuteman
Posts: 7439
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: USN To Build Only Two DDG 1000 Class Ships

Tue Aug 19, 2008 8:00 pm



Quoting Par13del (Reply 48):
How many men man the boilers in a nuke sub, help with the refuelling, ensure that the fuel tanks are full, etc. etc. The nuke subs heralded much automation in naval vessels

That said, your typical Nuke has about twice the crew of a conventional sub (mainly driven by the complexity of the maintenance routines and safety procedures..)

They DO have fuel tanks too, BTW, and boilers (after a fashion..)  Wink

Rgds

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos