The Ship Model Forum

I've seen this before, when you try to make a universal multi-purpose, general-purpose, all purpose anything you end up with skyrocketing cost and an indefinite delivery date.

A friend of mine has been working on [i]Zumwalt[/i] missle safety software FOREVER. It's nice that he has steady empoloyment, but multiply that over other tasks and systems and no wonder the thing costs so bloody much.

In WWII a ship or plane could be expected to do far worse damage to the enemy that what it actually cost. You'd have to fire off half the world's cruise missles to inflict the same damge as what the launch vehicle costs today.

Maybe John Keegan was right: warfare [i]per se [/i]will soon be impossible, because we won't be able to afford it.

Just an idea...

Build one destroyer sized vessel with the latest and greatest anti everything. Set it up so it can provide complete (as much as possible) ECM/ECCM protection for a small task force. Provide ASW helicopter capability, the works.

Then surround it with 4 purpose built destroyers. With a limited electronic suite, but as much offensive capability as possible.

Add to that one fully equipped anti-submarine vessel.

These six ships, two specialized, four rapid production, and see just how much more effective we could control a space, especially in the Pacific. If things ever go down in the PAcific (and I believe that it is where our next major war could likely come from) and you would be able to effectively perform escort duty for convoys.

Also, add two submarines to this as underwater protection.

You have to know that whoever we wind up fighting, especially in the pacific, will have looked long and hard at our submarine and resupply actions during WWII. We as Americans have this nasty habit of forgetting what makes sense, and what is foolish between wars.

Ric

I don't think the USA imports LNG at this time. There was some talk of the dangers of LNG tanker operations, especially in connection with terrorism, and I thought they decided if we import LNG we'd have to create a new port specifically for that purpose.

For obvious reasons foreign companies are going to continue to trade with the USA. We consume as much as the next several countries combined. No vendor could just "switch" their sales to Europe or Japan because there is nowhere near the demand. They'd be awash in product in weeks. I mean, how many � 100 Nike high-tops and Happy Meal Toys can Europe use?

I would phase in my program over years, so the shipping companies could get used to the idea.

That idea would kill your economy within a week Mr. Werner...

I don't know how much you know about US merchant shipping, but it really doesn't show much of self-sustainment. You wouldn't have any LNG imported since there are exactly 0.0 Americans in the crews of LNG vessels at this moment. That same number of LNG ships has an American flag and I don't think you can say to a shipping company that you would like one of his vessels in this port because you have to keep your economy afloat but that you are denying his other ship because of some competition reason. He won't like to deal with you and will most likely find more business in India or China. Face it, US isn't the big superpower anymore, a shipyard and labour cost is too high to make a ship at a credible price.

One thing you could do is set up a yard abroad and build your hull there. That is what certain European yards are currently doing. The Johan de Witt LPD for example. The hull was built in Romania for cheap. Afterwards she was towed to the Netherlands for installation of the superstructure and electronics. Same could be done by US, although I wouldn't exactly order it from China then. Better to build it in Japan, they do have high quality after all and are an Ally of US. With their experience in building high-tech ships I'm sure they could do it.
I suppose electronics and design are the biggest cost issues for warships and unless you can get cheaper electronics, I doubt the Zumwalt will get anywhere near "cheaper" than it was before. It's an ambitious project, too ambitious maybe. Better to go for a modified Burke IIA design with active phased array radars. I don't really see the problem with that. It has missiles enough, the only thing it's getting behind in is its radar suite and guidance. I'm sure they can make a new generation version of it for a much cheaper price than the Zumwalt! Take a look at the Japanese for that too, their latest Burke version, the Atago class cruisers are quite impressive ships!

If the US put port restrictions on non-US flag merchant shipping, foreign yards might suddenly find it in their interests to build ships in the USA.

The idea is to improve competition. Boeing can make the gold standard for aircraft; Honda can build cars in the USA, ship them to Japan and Europe and still make a profit. Clearly the problem with our yards is structural and not fundamental. Competition would cause the prices to fall and inefficient yards would close.

Congress could pass a rule that throttles access to first class port facilities to cargo ships not built in the USA (or maybe US-flagged, able to pass US rules). They could be required to unload at remote, smaller ports.

Building anything in the PRC is dangerous. They skimp, cut-cornors, and the like for everything.

[quote]So we order Chinese, do we get a ship with no substitutions? Or do we say, well I guess we trust you please install this top secret radar? Please don't copy it...Here is the missile launcher, please close your eyes while you install it.
[/quote]

I wouldn't put it past some business men in the USA to do that.

I often hear people complaining about lawyers and lawsuits; truthfully with the current state of ethics in the business community they frequently get what they deserve.

Been stewing on this idea for a while myself, as a naval engineer, I can think of 2 points why the USN can't just order ships like it was mail-order.

First-Giving the building yard a spec. does not ensure that the ship will conform to it. When Bath Iron Works had the dry dock built in Korea, or China I can't remember which now, when the Dry Dock was delivered nothing worked as it should. The builders had fouled the plumbing. It took a couple of months to make repairs and getting working as it should. The order included some new cranes, well when the cranes came the gears were all out of whack, moreover the crane could only do one task at a time, lift or traverse, but not both.

Second-So we order Chinese, do we get a ship with no substitutions? Or do we say, well I guess we trust you please install this top secret radar? Please don't copy it...Here is the missile launcher, please close your eyes while you install it.

When I worked at BIW I was working on 3 different DDGs, 81,90,92, mostly 92. Unless you have been in the belly of one of these beasts then it is hard to believe the amount of gear that is in them, and a lot of it is ship specific as engineers make minor changes through successive builds. A DDG is a hand made marvel.

One more point, if the Zumwalt does sink, and there are no orders to fill soon after the City of Bath, Maine will sink too.

V/r
-Ben

Minor PS
When I worked at the Yard, I represented the 3rd generation to work there, My Grandad retired in 1980, and my dad is still employed there...Also I was born and bred in Bath so I hope it all works out.

Mustn`t build our ships overseas - very bad idea - ship building is not the textile industry.

I vaguely recall President Reagan purchasing a tender... HMS [i]Maidstone[/i] for some reason sticks in my mind. In any event it was something on the order of 10,000 tons.

Ok. Let's send the money to the UK to build our frigates. We have bought ships from the UK before (salvage vessels). We don't seem to be able to design & build new surface ships any more no matter how much money we throw at them (San Antonio class & CG ships are eminent examples of this failure).

Anyway, who needs arsenal ships unless you are serious about duking it out with Iran? N. Korea seems to be less of a hot spot. The arsenal ship concept is a bad one.

[quote="Anonymous"]I think you have to be careful with the mission module idea, it works for minor systems but the more capable systems get the harder it is to not build them into the ships architecture, and once you go above point defence and short range the C&C suite becomes a fixed item which is a massive cost of the vessel. I can see the attraction for minor vessels, but I can't see it becoming a major aspect of larger ship design as the weapons and sensors then determine ship layout, power, hull volume etc.[/quote]
This is really a networking issue. Even now, the various modules really only interact in the fire control system. Radar, Sonar, ESM, missiles and guns are all pretty confined systems. Anyone who has seen a modern hospital knows what is possible with fibre optic cables and off-the-shelf standards. The speed of these networks is currently accellerating from 2GHz to 16GHz or more. My home computer's operating system supports a 16GHz network NOW.

I would say the real downside is building in "maximum" electrical power to take future loads is the one sticking point. Even so, the new electrically driven ships ought to provide a solution there.

Think about it: many systems have been designed to fit the slot occupied by an ASROC launcher and below-decks reload magazine. The most notable was the VLS launcher, but even deck-mounted canisters for Tomahawk were a partial solution using this space.

The entire CIC computer system ought to fit into a series of shipping containers. A large onboard "auditorium" could be outfit with off-the-shelf display and input systems as needed.

This is really a logical extension of the "CV" concept and the SCS of the 1970s. The SCS even featured shipping container shops for the kind of aircraft the ship was going to carry during that mission. Face it: the planes don't go far without their shops, and duplicating the facilities and inventories is a waste of tax dollars. Modular warships would be more useful and flexible than the DDG 1000. They could be optimized for the "Littoral" mission one month and in the next month be a "blue water" sub hunter.

I think you have to be careful with the mission module idea, it works for minor systems but the more capable systems get the harder it is to not build them into the ships architecture, and once you go above point defence and short range the C&C suite becomes a fixed item which is a massive cost of the vessel. I can see the attraction for minor vessels, but I can't see it becoming a major aspect of larger ship design as the weapons and sensors then determine ship layout, power, hull volume etc.

America needs to wake up

We need more submarines

We need more destroyers

and we need more carriers

If the lessons of war taught us anything, these Navy tools are the real backbone of a protracted war, especially in the Pacific.

And if we are stupid enough to start building our warships overseas, then in the event of war, we deserve to have whatever befalls us.

Ric

[quote="chuck"]It would be politically easier to break the cartel and reduce hull cost from 10 X to 5X of what can be achieved in a foreign yard than to actually order from a foreign yard.[/quote]
That's all well and good. Anything that can be done would help. Bear in mind the cartel arrangement was assembled with the cooperation of the Navy due to the very small number of orders possible. The cartel distributes the orders to the separate companies as a means of keeping three organizations alive on orders that could be satisfied by any one alone.

Update: the DDG 1000 website says the lead ship will cost $3.3 billion. The 5th ship is expected to cost $2.3 billion vs about $800 million for DDG 99 & 100.

Hopefully, DDG 1004 will have three times the capability as well. Somehow, I doubt it.

For comparison, the USS [i]George H. W. Bush[/i] has a "cost limit" of $4.8 billion. In other words, the "maximum price" of a [i]Nimitz[/i]-class carrier is 70% the [i]current price[/i] of DDG 1000

It would be politically easier to break the cartel and reduce hull cost from 10 X to 5X of what can be achieved in a foreign yard than to actually order from a foreign yard.

[quote="chuck"][quote="Werner"]

The author suggested this money also be diverted to purchase a modest number of austere warships [b]built abroad.[/b] [/quote]


The author is not living on this planet.[/quote]
Like I said above, the US shipbuilding cartel could not currently design and build a motor whaleboat for under $500 million. None of the foreign designs I looked at cost their governments 10% of that amount.

[quote="Werner"]

The author suggested this money also be diverted to purchase a modest number of austere warships [b]built abroad.[/b] [/quote]


The author is not living on this planet.

I think the packaged loadable mission modules seen in several foreign designs and the USN's LCS are a great idea which should be included in the next major design, instead of the current, highly organic, integrated platform.

The ship should be designed as a ship. It should have weight and space reservations for a variety of mission packages, and it should be built in sufficient numbers to provide economies of scale.

If this idea is followed, it would be unnecessary to limit production of the hulls to domestic yards.

[quote="jjb"]What I find worrying is that with the Zumwalt unaffordable and now more of a technology demonstrator/proving platform than a full class program, and the LCS costs spiralling out of control and suffering appalling management it seems some US politicians seem to advocate building nuclear powered 25,000T cruisers? :eyebrows: Just what planet do some of these people live on? Personally, I think the USN needs a follow on FFG as a good general purpose, affordable, surface combatant, and a new generation Arleigh Burke which can be manufactured in volume, as that design has lost it's edge of superiority over other types and if the USN wants to keep it's technological edge then the type needs upgrading.[/quote]

This is similar to the concept of building the Spruance class with plenty of room for upgrade.

Jack