The Ship Model Forum

The Ship Modelers Source
It is currently Thu Nov 23, 2017 5:26 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 144 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Nov 10, 2017 10:31 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2009 1:31 pm
Posts: 1662
Quote:
And how much money would it be worth to spend for a conversion of more than 30 year old hulls of the Ticonderoga and OHP class?

Based on commissioning date, the Ticos range in age from 23-31 yrs with 7 of the ships being 25 yrs or less. Given that the Navy is talking about wanting to get 35-50 yrs of service out of ships, it would be well worth the cost to modernize them. In fact, the Navy is half-heartedly doing this with the 2-4-6 modernization plan although the real purpose of the plan is to early retire 11 of the cruisers.

_________________
Bob Carr
My blog : http://navy-matters.blogspot.com/


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Nov 10, 2017 12:26 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 6:23 am
Posts: 1936
Location: Copenhagen
The Spruance class was not really optimal: no stealth, not optimal if damaged, extra weight problematic (see bulwarks at the bow of the Ticonderoga class) - today very different hull forms are used.

I cannot imagine that completely rebuilding a 30 year old ship makes economically any sense. Everything, which is expensive in case of new ships, would have to be new, i.e. the rebuild would cause most of the costs of new ship. Hulls are cheap - why using an old hull with limited time left instead of new hull?

The rebuild would use up money for new ships, which would be in any aspect superior to a rebuilt.

@ carr: I think that the navy want to decommission all the old Ticonderoga and would prefer new ships, which need much less crew and less maintenance.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Nov 10, 2017 12:40 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 2:12 pm
Posts: 1408
then explain the reason for the modernization of the Queen Elizabeth, Valiant & Warspite of the QE class battleships.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Nov 10, 2017 4:06 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2009 1:31 pm
Posts: 1662
No one is trying to argue that an older, upgraded ship is the exact performance equivalent of a new ship. The contention is that you can get more ship years of useful life per dollar spent than by building new ships.

Simple example: 10x 25 yr old ships can be modernized to a useful standard that would add 15 yrs of additiona life for $100M each. That's 150 ship years of use for a cost of $1B. Given that an LCS costs around $600M and a Burke costs around $2B, a frigate should cost right around $1B.

So, for $1B we can have 10 modernized ships and gain 150 ship years or we can have one brand new, small ship (or a half a Burke) and gain 40 ship years of life.

The caveat, of course, is that the modernized ships have to be capable enough to be significant warfighting contributors. To use the example of a Spruance. If it existed today, unmodernized, it would still be, arguably, the most capable ASW ship in the world (irrelevant) and certainly the most capable ASW ship in the US Navy (totally relevant) because it was built and optimized for ASW. Modernize the ships with the latest versions of whatever they might be lacking in and the Spruances would remain the world's best ASW. I'd rather have 10 of those than 1 new frigate. It's an easy choice.

The secondary caveat, of course, is cost. If the modernization costs as much as a new ship then let's build new ships. However, the data points we have strongly demonstrate that upgrades are far cheaper than new builds. For example, the Australians (who can give the US Navy a run for its money in terms of mismanagement!) upgraded their Perrys to a standard that is still useful for $100M. Another constant example is the periodic upgrade/overhaul availabilities that all ships undergo. Almost regardless of ship type, they run around $60M. During those availabilities, machinery is repaired, rebuilt, and replaced, as needed, networks are upgraded to the latest standard, habitability concerns are addressed, tankage is repaired and resealed from corrosion, radars are upgraded, new electronic countermeasures are added, etc. Another example is the President's budget submission for FY2002 which shows 4 unspecified ship comprehensive overhauls at a cost of $329M total which is an average of $81M in FY03 dollars. A cost of $100M seems a pretty good ballpark for having no specifics.

I've looked for the current Tico modernization costs but have been unable to find them. I've read articles suggesting costs anywhere from $70M - $250M per ship. The funding seems to be in the Ship Modernization, Operations, and Sustainment Fund but I can't find the actual budget numbers. I've found reports that the Navy has shifted around $134M to the SMOSF to fund cruiser modernization but it is unclear how many ships that is for and whether it's the total required funding.

Even the massive mid-life carrier overhauls are "only" a few billion dollars and those include nuclear refueling as well as coming as close to a total rebuild as feasible!

Many people make the unsupported claim that upgrades are almost as expensive as new builds but the available data points pretty clearly contradict those claims.

_________________
Bob Carr
My blog : http://navy-matters.blogspot.com/


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Nov 11, 2017 3:10 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 6:23 am
Posts: 1936
Location: Copenhagen
But we are talking about ships at the end of their life span they were designed for - 30 year old ships, not 10 year old ships. Usually warships are replaced after 25-30 years in service - especially frigate to cruiser sized ships.

There is for sure also a price difference between modernisations of ships which were continuously upgraded as most Ticonderoga class ships still in service - and the first Ticonderoga class cruisers decommissioned more than a decade ago and scheduled for scrapping. navydavesof described a modernisation, which would be much more expensive than the last modernisations of the ships still in service.

By the way: the first modernised Australian OHP class frigate is already decommissioned: HMAS Sydney. They aimed at modernise 20 year old ships and in total they served c. 30 years (or will serve 30 years)...

(I would surprise if the Spruance class would be still one of the best ASW ships - that is a more than 40 year old design and for sure there was some substantial progress since then. Anyway, they were worn out and in a bad shape when decommissioned).

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Nov 11, 2017 10:03 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 2859
maxim wrote:
But we are talking about ships at the end of their life span they were designed for - 30 year old ships, not 10 year old ships. Usually warships are replaced after 25-30 years in service - especially frigate to cruiser sized ships.
In order to grow the fleet, you have to maintain what you already have. As NAVSEA has stated in congressional hearings, warships can be modernized beyond their "expected life span" by up to 20% with proper maintenance, upgrades, and care.

maxim wrote:
There is for sure also a price difference between modernisations of ships which were continuously upgraded as most Ticonderoga class ships still in service - and the first Ticonderoga class cruisers decommissioned more than a decade ago and scheduled for scrapping. navydavesof described a modernisation, which would be much more expensive than the last modernisations of the ships still in service.
While I don't necessarily suggest the 3 Ticos be brought back without serious funding, the hulls are fine. If the Navy wanted to pour money into them, the design already exists. The hulls would simply need to be reactivated in NNSY with their super structures removed and towed to Bath and have a new super structure that was already built inverted and lowered onto the hull. That would be incredible and a huge step forward toward a new cruiser.

maxim wrote:
(I would surprise if the Spruance class would be still one of the best ASW ships - that is a more than 40 year old design and for sure there was some substantial progress since then. Anyway, they were worn out and in a bad shape when decommissioned).
In bad shape? Whose responsibility was that? Who carries the blame? Oh, yeah, the USN in their garbage SeaSwap program. The Navy should be fined by having to repair and modernize the ships they screwed over with that grossly implemented program. If the Sprucans were still around to be reactivated, they would receive the most modern ASW equipment. The thing that would make them super effective and "most modern" would be their singular focus. They would no be worried about BMD. They would not be worried about area AAW. They would not be worried about fleet command. Sure, they would have other responsibilities such as NSFS with 8" and 5" support, but it would be primarily an ASW ship sharpening those skills.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Nov 11, 2017 10:32 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 6:23 am
Posts: 1936
Location: Copenhagen
To extend the lifespan of old ship, has to be expensive. For sure it is possible, but the consequence are increasing costs for maintenance of the old ship. To produce completely new superstructures plus new sensors, electronics and weapons for 30 year old hulls appears to be a massive waste of money.

This money should be reserved for the Arleigh Burke Flight III or better ships - much better and more economical to operate and based of a hull one generation younger. For sure a little bit more expensive, because a new hull would have to built, but that hull could serve for 30 years - and not for just 6 years (20% of 30 years, the extended expected life span).

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Nov 11, 2017 12:07 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 2859
maxim wrote:
To extend the lifespan of old ship, has to be expensive.

Perhaps! But in the long term, unlikely.

maxim wrote:
For sure it is possible, but the consequence are increasing costs for maintenance of the old ship. To produce completely new superstructures plus new sensors, electronics and weapons for 30 year old hulls appears to be a massive waste of money.Via testemonies, no, that is not the case. For instance the Kidds could be modernized to well beyond LHD standards with 128 VLS tubes...that is not even considering their modernized configuration.


maxim wrote:
This money should be reserved for the Arleigh Burke Flight III or better ships - much better and more economical to operate and based of a hull one generation younger. For sure a little bit more expensive, because a new hull would have to built, but that hull could serve for 30 years - and not for just 6 years (20% of 30 years, the extended expected life span).
What would you suggest those Burke IIIs embark? Would you suggest any cheaper ships to perform the normal Navy tasks including NFSF/NFGS?

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Nov 11, 2017 1:05 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2009 1:31 pm
Posts: 1662
maxim wrote:
To produce completely new superstructures plus new sensors, electronics and weapons for 30 year old hulls appears to be a massive waste of money.

Couple of points here.

1. You seem to have the notion that an older, upgraded ship has to wind up being the exact performance equivalent of a brand new ship. That's neither feasible nor wise. Take the case of the Spruance, if it still existed. Upgrading would be intended to provide a ship that could perform ASW - not Aegis area AAW, ballistic missile defense, massive Tomahawk strike, or the like. It would fill the ASW gap that now exists and supplement the AAW and ASuW capabilities of the fleet in a significant way. The intent is not to make a functionally identical Burke. The intent is to provide numbers of highly capable ASW ships that can also contribute to AAW and ASuW. Therefore, it wouldn't need brand new Aegis radar arrays and computers. The Spruances already had 61 VLS, 5" guns (twice the Burkes!), Mk32 triple torpedo tubes, Sea Sparrow, Harpoon, and 2x CIWS - a pretty impressive weapons fit that, for the most part, would probably only need some software updates. The Spruance's sonar was the -53, the same sonar as the Burkes albeit a slightly older subversion. The Spruance radar is the mechanical, revolving SPS-40 which would probably be adequate for the role but could be upgraded to a TRS-3D or some such. In short, an upgrade would be cheap and easy and would provide increased numbers of ships in a warfare area that we are sorely lacking. If the Spruances still existed, it would have been a no-brainer (even for the Navy) to upgrade.

2. You're still clinging to vague, unsupported claims of high costs for upgrades. I've given you example data points that suggest what reasonable upgrade costs would be. Either provide some data that supports your claims or stop making them. Your claim is simply incorrect. I've also demonstrated the significant increase in ship-years that can be obtained via upgrades versus new construction so your claim of upgrades being a "massive waste of money" are simply untrue.

_________________
Bob Carr
My blog : http://navy-matters.blogspot.com/


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Nov 12, 2017 5:03 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 6:23 am
Posts: 1936
Location: Copenhagen
navydavesof wrote:
What would you suggest those Burke IIIs embark? Would you suggest any cheaper ships to perform the normal Navy tasks including NFSF/NFGS?

There should be some high quality surface fighting ship and many cheap ones.

For the first there is a new development necessary. The Burke Flight III can be an intermediate design. I am not sure, what they will get, but an active phased array radar (SPY-3/SPY-4) plus perhaps two 96 cell VLS could be possible.

For the low end some cheap frigate design would be good, e.g. TRS-3D in combination with a 16-32 cell VLS plus a big helicopter hangar plus space for towed array sonar, which some ships should get. As the British Type 23 and the Italian FREMM there could be some general purpose frigates and some dedicated ASW ships. Perhaps an even cheaper OPV could be option, e.g. something similar to the Dutch Holland class, to make up numbers for patrol duties. Traditionally large navies always had also such ships, usually called gunboats, sloops, or aviso. Today only a few of the larger navies have such ships, e.g. the French Floréal class or the British River class.

carr wrote:
You seem to have the notion that an older, upgraded ship has to wind up being the exact performance equivalent of a brand new ship. [...] You're still clinging to vague, unsupported claims of high costs for upgrades.

That was a comment to the very extensive modernisation proposal for the oldest, out of commission Ticonderoga class ships ;) It was not a comment to all kind of upgrades, but one aimed on very old ships!

The main problem with the older 1970s designs are their sensors and command systems. They are outdated and expensive to replace, in some cases the older ships have limited capacities for updates (e.g. the OHP class). The Australian modernisations were limited regarding the sensors, the Turkish ships got SMART-S radars plus the VLS launcher. The Australian program was planed for 20 year old ships - one decade ago. Now these ships are 30 years old and at the end of their life span. Why waste any money on them?

The US Navy had continuously built only high end ships (Arleigh Burke class destroyers) and continuously upgraded the old Ticonderoga class ships. For sure for these ships the modernisation costs are lower compared to older, long decommissioned ships. The US Navy had stopped to built low end ships for some time until the LCS program. The last one before the LCS was USS Ingraham (FFG-61) in 1989 - 28 years ago. There was a 17 year gap, in which no low end ships were built. There are no 15-20 year old low end ships, which would be worth an upgrade, except if the US Navy could buy ships from other navies!

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Nov 12, 2017 11:58 am 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2013 7:06 am
Posts: 1746
Location: Vancouver, Canada
navydavesof wrote:

The reactivation of the Kitty Hawk would be excellent. It would cost super way more than reactivating 2 or even 3 Iowas, and we would have to buy at least one more air wing to support her. I think building a model of the Kitty Hawk fully modernized and fitted with a modern airwing, deck markings, and weapons suite would be really neat


navydavesof,

It seems like we might have to settle with just making a what-if model of "reactivated Kitty Hawk", since it appears she will definitely be scrapped, as posted by dragon53 in another thread:

USS Kitty Hawk to be dismantled

I'm not sure about her sister ship JFK's status or if any group finally raised enough money to make her a museum.

Anyways, to stick to topic, there are still at least 3 Tarawa class LHAs left in mothballs, although Tarawa herself is being considered for preservation as a museum ship. That leaves Nassau and Peleliu, although the former was the target of a drive by the non-profit group "Coalition of Hope" to turn her into a humanitarian vessel.

I assume the LHAs would have no problem handling the F35Bs?

_________________
"Haijun" means "navy" in Mandarin Chinese.

"You have enemies? Good. It means you stood up for something in your life."- Winston Churchill


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Nov 13, 2017 1:36 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2013 7:06 am
Posts: 1746
Location: Vancouver, Canada
navydavesof wrote:
I think putting some considerable money into the Perrys would be a good thing. An upgrade in weapon systems (16-32 Mk41 VLS in place of the Mk13 launcher and magazine and Harpoons topside) and electronics (a new mast designed and installed mounting the SPQ-9B and TRS-3D radars and the re-installation of the SPG-60 STIR and at least a SeaRAM in place of the CIWS, but preferably controlling two slaved Millennium Guns to provide both gun and missile point defense) with a solid HM&E (SLEP) upgrade would really make them formitable warships for another 15+ years.


It seems there's opposition to reactivating the available, mothballed Perry class frigates:

Defense News

Quote:
Don't reactivate the old frigates, internal US Navy memo recommends
By: David B. Larter   16 hours ago

WASHINGTON — A move gaining traction in the upper echelons of the Navy to bring back mothballed Oliver Hazard Perry-class frigates would cost billions, cut into modernization accounts for other ships and add little to the Navy’s capabilities, according to documents obtained by Defense News.

The Navy estimates that bringing back 10 of the Perry-class frigates would cost in excess of $4.32 billion over 10 years, and take away from money needed to modernize the Navy’s existing cruisers and destroyers. In return, the Navy would get a relatively toothless ship only suitable for very low-end missions such as counter-drug operations.

“With obsolete combat systems and aging hulls, these vessels would require significant upgrades to remain warfighting relevant for another decade,” the document reads. “Any potential return on investment would be offset by high reactivation and life-cycle costs, a small ship inventory, limited service life, and substantial capability gaps.

(...SNIPPED)

_________________
"Haijun" means "navy" in Mandarin Chinese.

"You have enemies? Good. It means you stood up for something in your life."- Winston Churchill


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Nov 13, 2017 2:42 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 6:00 pm
Posts: 10246
Location: Calgary, AB/Surrey, B.C., Canada
carr wrote:

2. You're still clinging to vague, unsupported claims of high costs for upgrades. I've given you example data points that suggest what reasonable upgrade costs would be. Either provide some data that supports your claims or stop making them. Your claim is simply incorrect. I've also demonstrated the significant increase in ship-years that can be obtained via upgrades versus new construction so your claim of upgrades being a "massive waste of money" are simply untrue.


As a side reference, and to support the internal memo's figure noted in the article Haijin posted above, Canada's modernization of their 12 Halifax classes came in, officially, at roughly $4.3 billion. This involved, amongst other things, new air- and surface-search radars (SMART-S Mk2 and updated Sea Giraffe), passive surveillance sensors, an updated Bofors gun, new terminal designation radars for the missiles, shipwide damage control coordination systems, and ESSMs to replace the NSSMs.

This was all done on ~15 year-old hulls that have been continually-maintained up until their refit. This did not require new launchers (they still used the same Mk 48 VLS) and secondary weapons as Dave proposed, nor did it require the deep survey and repair necessitated by a potential Perry reactivation from the mothball fleet.

We can fudge the scope of modifications, maybe even argue that this might be cheaper in the US than in Canada, but this is certainly a very different picture than the other examples you showed. Even there, I must ask what your source is for the $100m/ship figure for the Australian Adelaide/Perry upgrade? Defense Industry Daily blasted the program for providing, by its conclusion, only four ships for $1.5B-$1.6B in 2009 Australian Dollars (historical exchange range suggests this to be equal to ~$1.3B 2009 USD, and if civilian inflation is added to it, would be $1.5B 2017 USD).


Edit: Rogoway posted a pretty decent rebuttal to the Navy memo here: http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/16 ... esnt-float

_________________
Yo dawg, I heard you like PE, so I put some PE in your PE so you can use PE on your PE.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Nov 13, 2017 9:38 pm 
The 355 ship goal is probably unrealistic. Modern weapons cost so much more than they used to. Most countries, other than China, are having trouble maintaining force levels. My feeling is that the gator navy should be reduced unless we plan to invade someone.


Top
  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2017 3:32 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2009 1:31 pm
Posts: 1662
Timmy C wrote:
I must ask what your source is for the $100m/ship figure for the Australian Adelaide/Perry upgrade?

From Def Ind Daily,

"The project has spent A$327 million of A$400.2 million, and will come in under budget but about 16 months late."

For the four ships that were upgraded, that's A$82M (~US$63M) per. Here's the link:https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/australias-hazardous-frigate-upgrade-04586/

The original scope was for six ships and a budget of A$1.27B which would have been A$212M (US$163M) per.


I know nothing about the Halifax upgrade program but it sounds like it resulted in a very capable vessel for the very low price of $358M (if that's Canadian currency, it would be US$283M - I don't know if it is or not?). This further supports my contention that upgrades are a very effective way to obtain modernized, combat effective ship years. If this upgrade provided modernized ships with, say 15 more years of life (they mentioned mid-life upgrades as part of the program which suggests an anticipated 30 year life span), that would provide 180 ship-years of life and 12 ships that could be in 12 different places at one time. The same total investment of $4.3B would buy 2 Burkes with a total of 60 years of ship life and could be in two different places at one time. Even at this elevated upgrade cost, it's still a pretty good case for upgrades. Consider that we're buying brand new LCSs for ~$400M (that's not real but it's what the Navy claims!) and they don't have a fraction of the capability of the Halifax. Would you rather have 12 upgraded Halifax or 12 brand new LCS? Admittedly, the LCS is about the worst case example of the benefits of a new ship but that's what the Navy is buying!


I would further emphasize the actual US Navy data on overhaul availabilities which consistently run around $60M. Admittedly, these are not quite the type of comprehensive upgrades of older ships that we're talking about but they provide informative data points. Add to that the Tico upgrade costs that appear to be somewhere in the realm of $100M-$200M and we have a pretty good feel for upgrade costs.

For the specific case of the Spruances, the upgrades would not have been all that extensive since the ships already had many of the same weapons and systems that we still use today (VLS, 5", etc.). Much of the upgrade would have focused on software.

_________________
Bob Carr
My blog : http://navy-matters.blogspot.com/


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2017 3:47 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 6:00 pm
Posts: 10246
Location: Calgary, AB/Surrey, B.C., Canada
carr wrote:

"The project has spent A$327 million of A$400.2 million, and will come in under budget but about 16 months late."

For the four ships that were upgraded, that's A$82M (~US$63M) per. Here's the link:https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/australias-hazardous-frigate-upgrade-04586/

That's only for the "replacing the frigates’ SM-1 missiles with more advanced SM-2s Block IIIAs possessing Mid-Course Guidance capability." part of the project. For total cost of the entire upgrade of 4 ships, you need to look down to the middle/bottom of the article where it cites a 2009 report on the completion of main deliverables, which is what I cited above.




carr wrote:
If this upgrade provided modernized ships with, say 15 more years of life (they mentioned mid-life upgrades as part of the program which suggests an anticipated 30 year life span), that would provide 180 ship-years of life and 12 ships that could be in 12 different places at one time...Would you rather have 12 upgraded Halifax or 12 brand new LCS? Admittedly, the LCS is about the worst case example of the benefits of a new ship but that's what the Navy is buying!

If we're going to be fair about using ship-years as a measurement, we need to be fair to the LCS - being new-builds, they'd have a full 30+ years per hull. Assume 8-10 ships for the same sum as the Halifax 15-year extension, and we get 240-300 ship-years to work with for the same price.

_________________
Yo dawg, I heard you like PE, so I put some PE in your PE so you can use PE on your PE.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2017 6:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 12:57 pm
Posts: 446
Well, the path forward needs to be broken down into three parts:

1 - Here and Now
2 - Extend the Critical
3 - Develop and Build the new.

Relying on the idea that the Burke class is probably the most efficable asset in inventory for Task group escort, we need to look at what can be done and when, realizing budget issue and the natural drag it will take to train up larger numbers of Sailors.


1 - Here and Now - what off-the shelf designs can do what for us?

We need a FFG that costs less than $1BillionUSD. We need a simple design, available in the near term, to kick this off. This should use existing and near term systems to get into service asap. The Japanese Akizuki class 'destroyer' costs under $1B and runs on 200 crew and is highly capable and diverse. Use US Sensors, say a suite built around AMDR with an Aegis computer backbone in place of the Japanese FCS-3A and poof.

Ambassador III class missile boats can do a close-in or group littoral COMBAT mission. Would be neat to see these supported by the Expeditionary platforms, and a group could easily be supported by an existing or off the shelf auxiliary.

A Modified hybrid of the Absalon/Huitfeldt could provide an overseas presence vessel with FFG AAW and a useable flex bay for many operations

Yes, we cannot do it all, but there are options out there to make things happen in the short term.


2 - Extend the Crticial

Tico's need heavy overhall, and all should be upgraded - they need to stand their post until properly relieved.

Burkes need HME updates to stay in service for their projected 35 year lives.


3 - Develop and Build the New

A new task force control ship, taking the role the Tico CG's currently have, needs to be developed using cutting edge technology to maintain our advantage. Cheap is already covered by the FFG, the medium is addressed by the Burke - this would be a new high-end combatant intended to be the centerpiece of task force defense. Technology should facilitate lower manning requirements while increasing influence and sensor area, integrating with space, air, and other sensors to command the total battle picture.

Consideration of a VTOL Carrier, such as a modification of the America Class with Marine landing removed, clearling space for a larger hangar and larger airwing. This would be a CVL/Light Carrier, to increase presence at a reasonable cost - and CANNOT REPLACE THE BIG DECK AMPHIBS - it needs to be in addition/in support of the Marine movers.

We need a fire support vessel for Marines ashore. This could take many forms, could use a navalized MLRS, tube artillery, both, or something new.


We are lucky in that we have a hot and pretty efficient production line for SSNs.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Nov 15, 2017 3:31 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 6:23 am
Posts: 1936
Location: Copenhagen
carr wrote:
For the specific case of the Spruances, the upgrades would not have been all that extensive since the ships already had many of the same weapons and systems that we still use today (VLS, 5", etc.). Much of the upgrade would have focused on software.

An upgrade would have been necessary for all the outdated sensors, communication and command systems and that includes a lot of hardware - but anyway, the Spruance class is not available for updates. There are no available low end surface fighting ships for updates, only some OHP class frigates, which are too old (all are around 30 years old). There are still two long out of commission Ticonderoga class cruisers scheduled for scrapping, which would be very expensive to update and they are also too old (33 and 34 years old).

For surface fighting ships of the US Navy there are only two classes available for updates: Arleigh Burke class and the still in commission Ticonderoga class ships.

An increase in numbers - at least for surface fighting ships - would have to come from additional newly built ships.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Nov 15, 2017 1:07 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 2859
maxim wrote:
carr wrote:
For the specific case of the Spruances, the upgrades would not have been all that extensive since the ships already had many of the same weapons and systems that we still use today (VLS, 5", etc.). Much of the upgrade would have focused on software.

An upgrade would have been necessary for all the outdated sensors, communication and command systems and that includes a lot of hardware - but anyway, the Spruance class is not available for updates. There are no available low end surface fighting ships for updates, only some OHP class frigates, which are too old (all are around 30 years old). There are still two long out of commission Ticonderoga class cruisers scheduled for scrapping, which would be very expensive to update and they are also too old (33 and 34 years old).

For surface fighting ships of the US Navy there are only two classes available for updates: Arleigh Burke class and the still in commission Ticonderoga class ships.

An increase in numbers - at least for surface fighting ships - would have to come from additional newly built ships.

I am going to use this correspondence to talk about a new build modernized Spruance with modern Kidd-class electronics. As is referenced in Norman Friedman's US Destroyers, when they were trying to decide if they should build repeat (NTU) Kidd-class DDGs or the notional Burke DDG, the NTU Kidd would have cost the same with 1/3 the detection and engagement capability. This is comparing Mk26 launchers vs Mk41 VLS with the Tartar D NTU.

After years had gone by, it turned out that the Burkes were the same cost as the Ticos, because the complexity of Burke construction resulting from the shorter hull and "just jam it in there" philosophy instead of making the Burke as long as the Tico.

As illustrated before, the idea is to build a 5' blistered and armored modern Sprucan with 128 VLS and 2 guns that make a difference (Mk71 8"). I would fit her with a modern Mk74 NTU (SSDS Mod4) and arrange her with an RCS reduced super structure, the electronics cost is just above 1/2 than that of an Aegis ship and 1/4 that of an AMDR ship. Essentially a Kidd with SPQ-9B incorporated is nearly twice as effective as the current Kidd-class Mk74 NTU.

I can take that kind of ship armed with guns that mean something, 128 VLS, a radar system that can be a reliable poor-man's Aegis, and an armored hull at just over 1/2 the cost with a 35-50 year life.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Nov 15, 2017 6:56 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2009 1:31 pm
Posts: 1662
Timmy C wrote:
If we're going to be fair about using ship-years as a measurement, we need to be fair to the LCS - being new-builds, they'd have a full 30+ years per hull. Assume 8-10 ships for the same sum as the Halifax 15-year extension, and we get 240-300 ship-years to work with for the same price.

Don't misunderstand me! Ship years is not the only measurement of the value of a warship. Combat effectiveness is also important [he said in a masterpiece of understatement!]. Crudely and conceptually, one would multiply combat effectiveness by ship-years to get a better measurement of value. In the Halifax/LCS case, that would be some factor, say an arbitrary 70% combat effectiveness for the Halifax, times ship-years. For the LCS, that would be 0% times ship-years which equals zero value. The result makes the choice blindingly obvious! The problem here is that combat effectiveness depends on what you think the ship should do and, unfortunately, people disagree, sometimes wildly. There are those who still think the LCS is a marvel of combat power while others, like me, think it's utterly worthless. Makes a determination of overall value difficult!

_________________
Bob Carr
My blog : http://navy-matters.blogspot.com/


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 144 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests


You can post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group