The Ship Model Forum

The Ship Modelers Source
It is currently Fri Mar 29, 2024 4:34 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 390 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 ... 20  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Apr 10, 2018 8:58 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2013 7:06 am
Posts: 3154
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Defense News

Quote:
Navy admirals worried struggling shipyards may impede efforts to increase fleet
By: Victoria Leoni   5 hours ago

Navy admirals are concerned about the economic viability of shipyards and other suppliers as the branch works toward its goal of a 355-ship fleet.

The Navy will grow by more than forty ships over the next five years, the Navy’s Budget director said Monday. But while the fleet will grow rapidly in the near term, the gains will sputter out shortly thereafter.

A panel discussion on innovation in shipbuilding at the annual Sea-Air-Space exposition in National Harbor, Maryland, focused heavily on shortcomings in the shipbuilding industry and the effects they have on the Navy’s capacity to maintain and grow its flee

(...SNIPPED)


Stiller suggested the Navy help build a national shipyard workforce to help offset some of the personnel losses in the industry.

Whatever the means, the consensus of the panel was clear: if the Navy wants to reach magic number 355, it needs to help keep shipyards alive.


(...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: Thu Apr 12, 2018 1:04 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2013 7:06 am
Posts: 3154
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Defense News

Quote:
Navy’s top officer lays out aggressive new cruiser replacement approach
By: David B. Larter   8 hours ago

WASHINGTON – Buoyed by rapid progress on the next-generation frigate, the U.S. Navy’s top officer is ready to quickly move out on the long-debated replacement for the Navy’s aging cruisers.

In an exclusive interview with Defense News, Chief of Naval Operations Adm. John Richardson laid out a strategy for a new large surface combatant that uses some of the tricks the Navy is employing on the FFG(X) program: looking at existing hull forms as a base for a tailor-made future combatant that can evolve over time.


(...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: Fri Apr 13, 2018 2:00 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 6:23 am
Posts: 3689
Location: Bonn
That is interesting. As the article mentioned there are many frigate designs available.

But which cruiser designs are available? If we ignore the question that for many authors the classical cruiser is dead since the 1950s and concentrate on a ship, which is larger than an Arleigh Burke Flight III and can be made more capable (what ever this means, related to the question what defines today a cruiser).

What hull designs are available in Western navies?

Zumwalt class

South Korean Sejongdawang class

Japanese Atago class


The article mentions also the Arleigh Burke itself (but what would be the difference to the Flight III ships?) and the much smaller British Type 45. If the Type 45 is considered, there would be e.g. also the Horizon class and the slightly smaller other European air defence ships - but again, these are smaller than the existing destroyers of the USN. For sure, also all existing "cruisers" of the USN are actually built on "destroyer" hulls and would have been called "frigate" (DLG) before 1975... In this case a cruiser could be a ship, which co-ordinates the air defence of a fleet. This can be done by many ships classified as frigates or destroyers. Modern classifications are a big chaotic mess.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Apr 20, 2018 3:13 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2013 7:06 am
Posts: 3154
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Defense News

Quote:
Walking back on 355 ships?
By: Jeff Martin   4 days ago

Dr. Jerry Hendrix of the Center for a New American Security, lays out his response to what he sees as the Navy walking back a plan for 355 ships. (Staff)

(FULL VIDEO AT LINK ABOVE)

_________________
"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: Sat Apr 21, 2018 4:31 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3121
Good lord. At this point, they just need to start building a ton more Cyclone Flight II class ships armed with a 76mm gun, 8 Harpoons or 12 NSM and a SeaRAM. Then we could count them toward “warships” and build up the fleet.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Apr 23, 2018 4:07 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2013 7:06 am
Posts: 3154
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Excerpts below on the sub fleet, including the Columbia class:

Defense News

Quote:
Interview: US Navy’s top officer talks acquisition, sub building and naval warfare
By: David B. Larter   4 days ago

WASHINGTON ― The U.S. Navy’s top officer made clear from the time he came into office in late 2015 that his job is to prepare the service for an era of renewed great power competition with Russia and China.

Key to that effort has been his belief that getting new technologies to the fleet can no longer take a decade to complete. In an age when advances in technology can happen overnight, the Navy has to be adaptable and agile to keep pace with the threat.

(...SNIPPED)



Quote:
(...SNIPPED)

Moving on to Ohio-replacement: It’s a very tight schedule, and the Navy is reportedly eating into the schedule. Where do you think you can buy back some time?

If you ask anyone in that program, the thing that I’ve been driving is that we have to get as much schedule margin into that program as possible. The technological risk is understood, the mission and the requirements are certainly understood, we have an experience industrial base in this regard. I feel confident we are going to be at about 83 percent design maturity before we start to build. So that helps a lot in terms of controlling costs. All of that is trending in the right direction.

Having said that, it’s complicated. And while it is on schedule, we need to get ahead of schedule.
Because inevitably something will happen, we’ll discover something in test. And it’s such a critical mission that we need to retire risk and pull everything to the left as aggressively as we can.


There is going to be a lot of strain on suppliers with two Virginia-class submarines in Columbia-class years, and perhaps even three Virginias in off years. And then the Columbia is equivalent to, what, a submarine and a half when compared to a Virginia?


More like two.

(...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: Tue Apr 24, 2018 11:03 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2013 7:06 am
Posts: 3154
Location: Vancouver, Canada
More on the sub fleet:

Defense News

Quote:
US Navy gearing up for boost in submarine production
By: Julia Bergman, The (New London, Conn.) Day via AP   5 hours ago

GROTON, Conn. — The U.S. Navy is working to build three attack submarines in some years as opposed to two, and wants to keep five of its attack submarines in service longer than expected to address a dip in the number of nuclear-powered attack submarines in coming years.

The U.S. attack submarine fleet is expected to shrink by 20 percent over the next decade. There are 52 attack submarines today; by 2028, that number is expected to dip to 42. The Navy has said it needs a fleet of 66 attack submarines, but that isn’t expected to happen until 2048 under current plans.

Meanwhile, the Navy continues to drive down the construction timeline for the Virginia-class attack submarine program. At the outset, the boats were built in 84 months. Then the Navy reduced the construction timeline to 74 months, and now the goal is to build them in 66...

(...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: Thu May 10, 2018 10:52 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2013 7:06 am
Posts: 3154
Location: Vancouver, Canada
From earlier this month:

US Navy looks to grow BMD ship force

Janes - 03 May 2018
Quote:
There are 38 BMD-capable ships in the FY 2018 fleet. Under the FY 2019 budget submission, that number is scheduled to be 41 at the end of FY 2019 and 57 at the end of FY 2023, noted the CRS report on the Aegis BMD programme.

According to the report, 31 of the 57 FY 2023 guided-missile destroyers and cruisers will be equipped with the latest Aegis BL 9.C2 version.

_________________
"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: Sat May 19, 2018 11:23 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2013 7:06 am
Posts: 3154
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Speaking of the USS McCain and USS Fitzgerald collisions' impact on the 7th Fleet:

Defense News

Quote:
US Navy still haunted by collisions, even as it adds Milius to 7th Fleet
By: David B. Larter   1 day ago

WASHINGTON — Nearly a year after the destroyer Fitzgerald’s collision with a container ship killed seven of sailors, wrecked its superstructure and punched a hole in its hull, that accident continues to have an impact on the Navy’s presence in Asia.

With this week’s arrival of the destroyer Milius, the U.S. Navy’s Japan-based surface fleet is back up to its pre-accidents strength of 11 cruisers and destroyers. But Milius was supposed to plus up the force to 12 surface combatants; instead it will serve as a replacement for Fitzgerald, something Navy leaders say they have no plans to change in the immediate future.

That means that added capacity destined for the Navy’s CRUDES hub at Yokosuka will have to wait as the service continues to try to meet demands and implement a rotational presence model known as Optimized Fleet Response Plan—Japan.

(...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: Sat May 19, 2018 2:19 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3121
Fascinating follow on posts!

Does anyone else feel like the Navy is taking the easy but most expensive way of filling the "small-surface combatant" role with super expensive ships?

Why not go with the original concept for LCS called the "Street Fighter" and making that the interim between a Corvette and an FFG? It could even be delivered as a DD!

I imagine the Street Fighter being a DD the length of a Perry FFG.
- 3x 155x60caliber guns
- TRS4D
- SPQ-9BSLQ-32 SEAWIP
-8x NULKA
-SRBOC Chaff
- 8-16x Harpoonn or NSM
- 2x HH-60 or 12-24 UAV
- 3x SeaRAM mated with 35mm Millennium Guns, P/S and one aft
-

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat May 19, 2018 9:55 pm 
It also happens in the Air Force. It is generally referred to as "gold plating." The rational is that if a feature gives an edge to the pilot, then money should not be a consideration.


Top
  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun May 20, 2018 11:49 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 6:23 am
Posts: 3689
Location: Bonn
Does that fit on a Perry hull?

A Perry had one 3 in, one SM-1 launcher, torpedo tubes, and two SH-60B. The Taiwanese managed to add additional anti-ship missiles, the Australians and Turks a small ESSM VLS launcher. But your list is much longer.

Alone the three 155 mm guns would not fit to a Perry hull if they should have enough ammunition. Only one such gun, two helicopters and two SeaRAM could be too much for a Perry hull. And I would add at least a medium AAW missile (ESSM), not only SeaRam.

I guess it is this kind of wish list, which causes ships to grow twice to its planned displacement ;) :D

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Jun 02, 2018 12:46 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2013 7:06 am
Posts: 3154
Location: Vancouver, Canada
A hint that the Oliver Hazard Class frigates will be reactivated?

Military.com

Quote:
Bath Iron Works Lands $87.2M Contract to Upgrade Frigates, Destroyers

Bangor Daily News, Maine 1 Jun 2018 By Beth Brogan

BATH, Maine -- The Department of Defense on Wednesday awarded Bath Iron Works an $87.2 million follow-on contract for planning yard services for the Arleigh Burke class destroyers and Oliver Hazard Perry class frigates.
(...SNIPPED)

Older Oliver Hazard Perry-class frigates are not currently part of the U.S. Navy fleet, although other countries such as Australia use them, BIW spokesman David Hench said.

As President Donald Trump pressed for a build-up of the Navy to 355 ships, Chief of Naval Operations Adm. John Richardson said in June 2017 that the Navy would "take a hard look" at bringing "mothballed" Oliver Hazard Perry-class frigates back into service, the U.S. Naval Institute reported.

But in December, USNI reported that reactivation would cost hundreds of millions of dollars.

The $87 million contract covers maintenance for DDG 51s and FFG 7s, Hench said.


(...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: Sun Jun 03, 2018 3:21 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 6:23 am
Posts: 3689
Location: Bonn
They mention the Australian navy as operating OHP frigates... The Australian navy has already decommissioned four out of six ships of the Adelaide class and the remaining two will be probably not left long in service. Also the most modernised ships of the class are the Turkish ships, not mentioned by the spokesperson. Most navies having such ships in service are planing to replace them soon - perhaps except of those lacking the means to do so.

What would be the idea to bringing back those old OHP class ships back into service? The USN operated OHP class ships were essentially expensive to operate OPVs stripped of their main weapon system. It for sure does not make any sense to modernise more than 30 year old ships, which were designed as cheap, austere escort ships.

The contract is about 87 million $ - for sure not sufficient for activating any ship, especially, if also maintenance of Arleigh Burke class destroyer is included. What does the contract really include? Some maintenance of the decommissioned ships to prevent them falling apart? With the hope that some desperate, poor navy accepts these old ships?

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Jun 03, 2018 7:28 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2016 6:08 pm
Posts: 240
Location: Yorktown, Indiana, USA
"The $87 million contract covers maintenance for DDG 51s and FFG 7s, Hench said."

There are costs for keeping ships in mothballs, likely a small part of the $87 million was an add-on to cover the expenses for the nine OHPs still in reserve.

If the 355 ship fleet is going to become a reality in the near term there are several ships which will need the equivalent of a FRAM type program to keep the numbers up. The Tycos and early Burkes service lives would need to be extended. The LCS are expensive and bring very little to the table in terms of combat capability, the Navy really can't figure out what to do with them. Politics are keeping the shipyards building them now. The Perrys would be cheaper and more effective than the LCS if overhauled and fitted with VLS and Harpoon.

IMHO the way forward would look something like this:

Increase the build rate of the Burkes;
FRAM the Flight I Burkes;
FRAM the Tycos;
Overhaul and reactivate the nine Perrys;
Decommission all the existing LCSs, cease construction on them immediately;
Proceed with an FFG(X), provided they can be cost effective compared to the Burkes;
Design a corvette version of the FFG(X) but smaller.

My two cents.

_________________
https://inchhighguy.wordpress.com/


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Jun 03, 2018 7:51 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 6:23 am
Posts: 3689
Location: Bonn
Why do you think that it would cheaper to activate old expensive ships and modernise them compared to using existing, much cheaper to operate LCS, which can be also be updated? Probably for a cheaper amount compared to the old OHPs?

I agree with you regarding the value of the existing LCS. But why favouring old, old-fashioned ships as the OHPs?

And for what do you want a corvette design? Smaller is not cheaper. It would be cheaper, if equipped with fewer sensors and weapons.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Jun 03, 2018 9:49 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2016 6:08 pm
Posts: 240
Location: Yorktown, Indiana, USA
I don't think either LCS design is salvageable. At the most basic level a warship must be able to project power at sea, and in the modern world that means weapons systems and sensors. The Navy is struggling to find a mission for the LCS because the design lacks both. They are running $600 million per hull, and that is before the modular weapons packages are fitted. They are cheaper to operate compared to other surface combatants in part because of their ridiculously small crews. This is a huge liability for a combatant as the reserve manning, maintenance, and damage control capabilities just aren't there. The "savings" are also a bit of budgetary slight of hand, as the missing crew members are still there, just assigned to a shore based maintenance support command instead of the ships themselves. An LCS cannot perform any of the major surface warfare missions and has marginal capability in any of the warfare areas for basic self defense.

Approach the LCS vs OHP argument from the perspective of putting weapons systems to sea and then run the cost analysis. IMHO a baseline weapons package should have a VLS for ESSM, ASROC, and TLAM - 16 cells at the very minimum, 32 is better; 8 Harpoon, CIWS or RAM, OTS torpedoes, helos, and a gun system with some NGFS capability. You MAY be able to insert a plug to allow the Freedom-type hull to carry those weapons systems (I have my doubts), but the Independence hull is out. The Perry class design is already there, but old. Now run the analysis and see the costs per year to operate each version and see where the efficiencies take you. You may actually want to refit BOTH the Perrys and the Freedom LCS in order to get the fleet numbers up quickly.

For a corvette design the mission would be patrol / escort, with an eye towards freeing up the Burkes for fleet work and high threat missions. You don't need a cutting-edge ship for these missions, but the ship should be able to defend itself and possess a credible capability in the major surface warfare mission areas. Re-use systems salvaged from decommissioned ships where it makes sense. By that I mean 5"/54 guns and GFCS; radars, TASS & sonars from OHPs and Spruance DDs, etc. Those systems still capable even if not state of the art. You'd want a VLS, Harpoon, and CIWS/RAM again. Use RPVs instead of helos. You may wind up with a beefier LaCombattant-type design, or maybe the Freedom LCS could be stretched and armed enough to fill this role.

Just my speculations. Might be fun to model these.

_________________
https://inchhighguy.wordpress.com/


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Jun 03, 2018 12:03 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 6:23 am
Posts: 3689
Location: Bonn
For me the main problem with the LCS are there raceboat-like hulls, which are not shockproof and not optimal for any role, especially not ASW and as minehunter. The strange speed-requirement resulted in a weak hull.

The sensors and weapons of the current LCS are very similar to the OHP in their last fit. The LCS are likely superior, because of their newer radars. Remember: the OHPs were nearly disarmed at the end of their service.

A short VLS can be added to an OHP (for ESSM), but I doubt that there is space for one, which can fire also ASROC and Tomahawk. Such VLS are until now only installed in much larger ships. The Turkish and Australian navy added an 8-cell VLS, I would guess 16-cell is the maximum for that small hull and would require larger changes at the place of the former SM-1 launcher.

I think that a LCS is cheaper to operate than an OHP, because the much more modern systems (today's vs. 40 year old designs) are much more automated resulting in a smaller crew requirement. For sure there is a lot of discussion, what the crew size for an LCS should be and there appear to be a consensus that the original crew size was too small.

For making up numbers, the re-using existing weapons from decommissioned ships could be a good idea (how much of that is stored?). But a small hull (fast attack craft style) is not a good idea, because it can have only limited sensors and weapons. Large ships are much easier to modernise and they can be made cheap by re-using existing weapons - or by adding now fewer weapons, but with space to add additional weapon modules latter. With modules I mean similar ones to those the MEKO or Standard Flex concept. I.e. weapons, which can be simply bolted and plugged on.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Jun 03, 2018 12:31 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2016 6:08 pm
Posts: 240
Location: Yorktown, Indiana, USA
The hull compromises you mention are among the reasons I question whether the LCS designs are salvageable at all. Might be a better fit in the Coast Guard but even with that there are superior designs for their missions.

The 8-cell VLS systems added to the HMAS and Turkish OHPs were in addition to the Mk. 13 systems, which remained. Given that the Mk 13 magazine housed 40 rounds I would expect a 32 cell VLS would not be a problem with either space or weight, a 48 cell VLS should fit as well. If more space was needed a hull extension could be added forward, they certainly would not be the first ships to be so modified.

I agree that a fast attack boat is not an option. I think you get to 2 - 3,000 tons rather quickly looking at the desired weapon / sensor fit with range and habitability issues factored in.

_________________
https://inchhighguy.wordpress.com/


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Jun 03, 2018 11:43 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 6:23 am
Posts: 3689
Location: Bonn
True, I also do not think that the hull issue can be fixed. But if there is an urgent need for numbers, I would use the LCS instead of recommissioning old ships, which are both expensive to operate and expensive to update. The OHP are at the end of their designed service lives, it will get more and more expensive to keep them running.

The question how big an VLS launcher can be, is an interesting one. Regarding weight you are for sure right that a 32 VLS should be possible and I measured the size of 32-cell VLS on an Arleigh Burke and an OHP class model, which showed that there is enough space on an OHP. Still there is the question, what kind of VLS can be installed. A long one, which can fire also Tomahawk or only a short one? I would still think that there is also space for a short one, i.e. no Tomahawks.

2000-3000 t is rather small. The Freedom class has nearly 4000 t displacement. As written, hull size is not important regarding costs. Sensors and weapons are expensive. Ok, steel can be more expensive after Trump's decision regarding steel tariffs, but still hull costs should be a minor part of total costs.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 390 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 ... 20  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 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

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