The Ship Model Forum

The Ship Modelers Source
It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 5:53 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 390 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 ... 20  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Jun 04, 2018 8:04 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2009 1:31 pm
Posts: 1780
..


Last edited by carr on Wed Jul 11, 2018 12:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Jun 04, 2018 9:04 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2016 6:08 pm
Posts: 240
Location: Yorktown, Indiana, USA
The VLS does not have to be flush with the deck. You can install any length required if you have the VLS box project above the deck line but I am not convinced that would be required. Likewise, the hull can be lengthened by installing a plug at the superstructure face similar to the British Type 42s so you could go to a 64-cell VLS if desired even if it wouldn't quite fit in the existing Mk 13 space. With a 5"/54 and a VLS on the fo'c'sle the QHPs would look mean. Make an interesting model anyway.

Like I said earlier in the thread, the intent would be to get capable weapons systems to sea quickly in a cost-effective manner. The costs to FRAM each individual OHP hull is very subjective and will vary, perhaps considerably. No way we armchair admirals can assess that accurately here.

_________________
https://inchhighguy.wordpress.com/


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Jun 04, 2018 12:00 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 6:23 am
Posts: 3688
Location: Bonn
@ carr: thank you for making me aware of that study!

Unfortunately the "Average Life Cycle Cost Per Year" includes the purchase of the ships and its equipment. It is not the pure running costs (fuel, lubricants, maintenance, crew etc.). I had expected the LCS to be cheaper in that regard compared to the swimming equivalent of a vintage car (OHP class). I am for sure not surprised that the life cycle costs of the LCS are higher. There are plenty of indications that the LCS are overpriced, not capable ships based on weird requirements (e.g. the anti-swarm fighting requirement or the high speed requirement). If it turns out that also the pure running costs are higher than of old 1970s ships, the LCS program is even a bigger disaster than I had thought.

It is really the question what to do with all these LCS, which are existing, are built or already ordered. What happened to the plans to reconfigure them to FFs? (it is anyway correct that "LCS" is strange; that would be usually a type of amphibious ship, e.g. Landing Command Ship, not a ship for fighting submarines...)

@ InchHigh:
The question is the hull depth. What are the smallest ships with VLS capable of firing Tomahawks? It is difficult to find that information, because usually the type of VLS Mk 41 is not given (e.g. on Wikipedia) and many navies may have ships capable of firing Tomahawks, but have not bought any.

For sure a modernised OHP would be interesting. The different existing variants of the class are too similar to make it interesting to built models of them (perhaps with the exception of the Taiwanese ships with additional launchers and the Turkish ships with the VLS and new radar).

But I doubt that it would be cost effective to modernise more than 30 year old ships of the OHP class. The FRAM at the end of the 1950s were designed for ships, which were 20 year or less old - during the Cold War, where there was a massive demand for ships. Now the situation is still very different and the ships would be much older.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Jun 04, 2018 12:58 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2016 6:08 pm
Posts: 240
Location: Yorktown, Indiana, USA
Mk 41 VLS Strike Module dimensions here: http://www.alternatewars.com/BBOW/Weapo ... ke_BAE.pdf

Depth is 303" = 25' 3" = 7,7m; you basically need three decks.

Anything which doesn't fit inside the hull can project above the weather deck.

_________________
https://inchhighguy.wordpress.com/


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Jun 04, 2018 1:13 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2009 1:31 pm
Posts: 1780
..


Last edited by carr on Wed Jul 11, 2018 12:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Jun 04, 2018 1:22 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2009 1:31 pm
Posts: 1780
..


Last edited by carr on Wed Jul 11, 2018 12:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Jun 04, 2018 2:56 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2016 6:08 pm
Posts: 240
Location: Yorktown, Indiana, USA
The Freedom class LCS design was $537 million in FY2012 dollars.
The Independence class LCS design was $635 million in FY2011 dollars.

Those costs are before they are armed with mission package sets. The LCS can carry one package at a time.

Mine warfare packages cost $97.7 million each.
ASW packages cost $32.6 million each.
ASuW packages cost $20.9 million each.
The "mission package equipment set" needed to integrate any of the warfare packages adds another $14.8 million.

_________________
https://inchhighguy.wordpress.com/


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Jun 04, 2018 5:34 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 12:57 pm
Posts: 484
carr wrote:
maxim wrote:
I think that a LCS is cheaper to operate than an OHP

In case you're interested in actual data rather than an opinion, here's some data. From the GAO-14-447 LCS operating cost report,

Average Life Cycle Cost Per Year:

LCS with module = $79M

OHP = $54M

DDG-51 = $88M


Thus, the LCS is significantly more expensive than the OHP and approaching the Burke class.


Shocking. No excuse for this higher cost for lower capability and higher risk to Sailors.

I know of a Naval Engineer who quit over the LCS - could not agree with the decisions made which will needlessly endanger Sailor's lives.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Jun 04, 2018 6:07 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2009 1:31 pm
Posts: 1780
..


Last edited by carr on Wed Jul 11, 2018 12:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2018 1:40 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 6:23 am
Posts: 3688
Location: Bonn
That would indicate that the costs for building LCS really went down after the first ships. There would be only newer data regarding the operating coasts needed, not only the 2014 life cycle estimates. It would be also in addition interesting, how the operating coasts of the older ships developed over time, especially in their last decade of service. The average life cycle coasts cannot tell anything about that, because they are averaged.

@ InchHigh:
Perhaps I should also remembered that the Russian navy is able to design vertical cruise missile launchers into much smaller corvettes of the Buyan class. But still: I do not see any sense in updating 1970s design ships, I would concentrate of building new ones. These should be designed for low operating coasts, having normal warship hulls (not raceboat hulls) and be able to be updated with additional armament if necessary.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2018 8:25 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2016 6:08 pm
Posts: 240
Location: Yorktown, Indiana, USA
I do not see any sense in updating 1970s design ships, I would concentrate of building new ones.

Your point does not address getting to a 355 ship fleet quickly in a cost effective manner. If you assume it is acceptable to operate with a fleet strength deficit for another 40 years or so then I agree with you, new builds would be better. If you accept that the USN needs another 75-80 ships to accomplish assigned missions TODAY then ways must be found to extend the usefulness of existing hulls until new builds can be commissioned. In my mind that includes seaworthy hulls in the reserve fleet when they can be re-armed in a cost effective manner.

A new Burke costs $1.8 billion. Assume you could FRAM the reserve Perrys to extend service life for 15-20 years and add VLS, Harpoon, and a 5"/54 for $200 million each. Sounds reasonable? (Actually sounds a bit high to me!) The fleet then gets nine more ships (rather quickly) for the cost of one Burke (or three LCS). There are many missions for which a re-armed Perry would be more than adequate (and which an LCS cannot perform), so that investment effectively frees up nine Burkes for more threat intensive missions. Now you only need to come up with another 66-71 more ships TODAY to cover the existing mission requirements.

The situation becomes even more dire when you realize that the LCS are being counted as warships even though they cannot perform ANY of the major surface warfare mission requirements and are still being built. Costs without benefit.

_________________
https://inchhighguy.wordpress.com/


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2018 9:38 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 6:23 am
Posts: 3688
Location: Bonn
The question is why it should be done quickly and for what ships are needed.

To update nine old ships to get mediocre ships, which are already overaged and could be operated not for long periods, for 200 million each sounds pretty expensive - especially these will be for sure also not cheap to operate ships, but ships, which will require a lot of expensive repairs and require large crews.

If we use again the term life cycle cost: it would be cheaper to buy an existing warship design and install either stored weapon systems or only a minimal armament necessary to today's tasks (ok, today, there are only some MGs necessary, it could be e.g. one 3" - 5" gun, 8 cell VLS, RAM, and a helicopter deck), it would cost for sure 200-400 million, but it could operate for the next 30 years, have a smaller crew and should be easier to maintain.

One example of warship using mainly already existing weapon modules: the Danish Absalon class. A very expensive item was e.g. the newly bought 5" guns, for which the promised long range ammunition still does not exist (perhaps the Italian 127 mm would have been the better choice). Coast per ship: 225 million $. Even the much more sophisticated equipped Iver Huitfeldt class was only 325 million $ per ship.

If it would be really so urgent, the US Navy could also buy cheaper ships from somewhere else. And if it would be urgent, ships can be built also fast, especially existing designs. But there is no indication that somebody in the US government considers that to be an urgent problem.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2018 10:11 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 12:57 pm
Posts: 484
I have many refit ideas for the OHPs as a what-if, but more money into them at this point is not an effective way to get good use of total hull time per dollar.

There are many ways to grow the fleet. Just as OHPs were built in man yards, so could a new Frigate.

One option for the British Type 31e on the Absalon baseline:

https://navaltoday.com/2018/05/31/arrow ... -revealed/

Something like this is easily buildible in may yards within the US.


(Edited to clarify that the linked option is a contender for Type 31e - not the final. It had already won in my mind...)


Last edited by SumGui on Tue Jun 05, 2018 11:59 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2018 10:31 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 6:23 am
Posts: 3688
Location: Bonn
That is very interesting that the Type 31 will be based on the Absalon/Iver Huitfeldt hull. Will she get SMART-S radar? It will be unlikely the high-end solution of the Iver Huitfeldt (SMART-L/APAR). That appears to be good solution: a cheap frigate, which can be easily upgraded if needed.

/edit: ups, the Arrowhead 140 is only one of the contenders for the Type 31 not yet the chosen design, right?

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2018 11:42 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2009 1:31 pm
Posts: 1780
..


Last edited by carr on Wed Jul 11, 2018 12:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2018 12:00 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 12:57 pm
Posts: 484
maxim wrote:
/edit: ups, the Arrowhead 140 is only one of the contenders for the Type 31 not yet the chosen design, right?



Excellent point, I re-read my post and was admittedly overzealous, thanks. Has been clarified.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2018 12:24 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 12:57 pm
Posts: 484
carr wrote:
maxim wrote:
To update nine old ships to get mediocre ships, which are already overaged and could be operated not for long periods, for 200 million each sounds pretty expensive

Rather than work from unsupported viewpoints, let's generate some data.

Nine old ships operated for an additional 10-15 yrs (let's be conservative and say just 10 yrs), at a cost of $200M each gives us (9 ships x 10 yrs = 90 ship-years of naval use) for a cost of (9 ships x $200M per ship = $1.8B.

A new Burke costs around $1.8B and has a lifespan of 35 yrs (notwithstanding the Navy's recent arbitrary and unrealistic redesignation of lifespan to be 45 yrs - like that will ever happen!).

So, a single Burke gives the Navy one ship that can be in one place, doing one thing, at a cost of $1.8B and the Navy gains 34 ship-years of use. By comparison, the nine old ships give us nine ships that can be in nine places, doing nine things, at an identical cost of $1.8B and the Navy gains 90 ship-years of use. Note the nine versus one in terms of number of ships and the 90 versus 34 ship-years.

With some actual data in hand, we can now see that the case for nine old ships is very strong - almost overwhelming.



Be careful with false equivalencies.

No year of an OHP is directly equal to one year of a Burke. So the implied 90 to 34 ratio is a misleading comparison.

Also, you omit manning costs. 9 OHPs for 10 years would require 176 crew x 9 ships x 10 years = 15840 crew years of manning vs. 276 crew x 1 ship x 34 years = 9384 crew years. (crew numbers are Wikipedia number for the purpose of illustrating the ratio. Perry's I worked with commonly carried over 200 and the Burke's closer to 330)

Also omitted are logistics for ships in 9 locations instead of one, and fuel for 9 ships instead of one.


The basic low-cost logic is sound, but beware sweeping comparisons which have too many holes.

What those 90 refit Perry years would actually buy is 90 more Burke years doing higher-end jobs Burke's should be doing by taking their place on the low intensity side.


Buying more Burke is not really the target of the Frigate option.

if 90 Perry years cost $1.8b in material, that needs to be compared to the other option - a new frigate.

9 new Frigates, average cost $1b each, 35 years service life, generates 315 years at a cost of $9b.

On a per year basis, the Perry's cost $20m per ship year, the new FF $28m per ship year.

The refit Perry's would demand replacement (another high capital expenditure) within 8 years to be replaced in 10.

The new FFs would have lower crew and maintenance costs and be more capable.

New is a no-brainer.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2018 12:57 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2009 1:31 pm
Posts: 1780
..


Last edited by carr on Wed Jul 11, 2018 12:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2018 11:29 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 6:23 am
Posts: 3688
Location: Bonn
The discussion was refitting old frigates vs. building new frigates. The discussion was also how to get frigates cheaper, e.g. how the Danes could built the Absalon class for 225 million $ per ship (much cheaper than SumGui's example of 1 billion $ frigate). Nobody proposed to built even more Arleigh Burkes instead of refitting old ships. The comparison of the costs of a high end with a low end surface warships for sure will always results in higher costs of the high end warship.

And a comment to the fleet under Reagan:

under Reagan 30 year old ships were also decommissioned, e.g. the Forrest Sherman class. They all left the fleet 1982-83 (except of Edson, which left 1988) and they were not even 30 years old (commissioned between 1955-59). Most old ships already decommissioned ships were not activated, e.g. Mitscher class, FRAM destroyers or the converted guided missile cruisers. These were often of the same age group than the Oliver Hazard Perry class frigates now.

The numbers were made mainly by newly built classes, which were started to be mass produced before Reagan: Spruance class, Ticonderoga class, Oliver Hazard Perry class...

And the gross federal debt exploded under Reagan, it was clearly not a sustainable politics, which was rescued by the timely collapse of the Soviet Union.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Jun 06, 2018 7:51 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2009 1:31 pm
Posts: 1780
..


Last edited by carr on Wed Jul 11, 2018 12:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 390 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 ... 20  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 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