USN Warship Numbers: What is ideal? (re-titled)

[Timmy C]

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

[gms]

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.

[carr]

..

[Timmy C]

"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/au ... ade-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.

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.

[SumGui]

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.

[maxim]

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.

[navydavesof]

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.

[carr]

..

[carr]

..

[carr]

..

[Haijun watcher]

A number of former US SECNAVs weigh in on this article:

Breaking Defense

Industry Can Build 355 Ships, But Which Ones?
By Sydney J. Freedberg Jr. on November 15, 2017 at 5:39 PM


WASHINGTON: Sure, American industry can build the 355-ship fleet both Trump and the admirals want, three former Navy Secretaries said today. We can even build it a lot faster than most experts expect, but there are a lot of ifs. If we start using small shipyards that currently don�t build warships. If we streamline procurement, and, of course, If Congress can finally bust Budget Control Act caps on spending. Those three obstacles, of course, have defied reformers for years.

And after we do all that, we still might not have the right 355 ships, two of the secretaries warned. Those small yards can build small vessels like the Littoral Combat Ship, but they will struggle to build large, complex combatants like destroyers. They definitely can�t build nuclear-powered submarines or aircraft carriers, the crucial capital ships of modern naval warfare.

(...SNIPPED)

(...SNIPPED)

Danzig & O�Keefe: Wait A Minute

If you go to small yards for small ships in large numbers, you�ll short-change the big ships needed for a big war, argued Richard Danzig, Navy Secretary under Clinton. �Fundamentally, the rationale for the Navy, the importance of the Navy to this republic, is the ability to fight even when we get into a major conflict�. If you raise the flag of 350 or 355 ships as the measure of our well being.. we will motivate people to build more and more at the low end and less and less at the high end, and it�s the high-end capability that we need.�
NASA photo

�350 ships or any number you choose is a bumper sticker,� agreed Sean O�Keefe, who served as Navy Secretary under George W. Bush (and ran NASA for H.W.). The right number and mix of ships needs to derive from some kind of strategy, he said, �which has yet to be really articulated in this administration.�

Can industry ramp up to build 355 ships? Sure, Danzig and O�Keefe agreed. But if you�re asking that, �you�re asking the wrong question,� O�Keefe told me. A better question, is �what kind of ships you�re looking for?

�It really does begin with the proposition of what is it you�re trying to scale to and what are the capabilities you�re looking for�which you don�t know,� O�Keefe said, because there�s no strategy. �When you get merely a numeric target, that doesn�t tell you much of anything.

�If you�re saying there�s a fixed number of low-(end) vessels, there are any number of different yards that can scale in relatively short order to accommodate that,� he said. �If you�re looking at the high end� � such as an Aegis destroyer, let alone a nuclear-powered vessel ��you have a much smaller number (of yards).�

�You would need to invest in transforming it (the industrial base),� Danzig told me. �That�s something I think we can do.� You�d need not only to expand the capabilities of the smaller yards, but diversify the bigger ones.

�I�m not saying we ought to make this huge investment,� Danzig hastened to say. �I�m just saying, if you want to go down the path that John is urging, (it�s possible). If you�re talking about a long-term building program � as inevitably you are � you can ramp up the industrial base.�

The industrial base isn�t the problem, Danzig and O�Keefe agreed. It�s everything else. In particular, it�s the money. Even if the Navy gets the funding for 355 ships of whatever kind, it also needs money to man and maintain them, or else you get a large but low-quality �hollow force.�

Crews must be recruited, trained, and given time to rest between deployments. Ships must be repaired, upgraded, and overhauled, all requiring significant time between deployments. And all these bills must be paid year after year after year, for 25, 30, 40, or 50 years (for LCS, submarines, destroyers, and carriers respectively) after the initial, crowd-pleasing contract to build the ship is signed.

(...SNIPPED)

[maxim]

This is a fascinating approach. Given the proliferation of sea-skimming anti-ship missiles [almost all are sea-skimming within a ship's SAM engagement range even if they have an initial high alt cruise phase], no radar system, Aegis included, is going to see the missiles much beyond the radar horizon of 20 miles or so. That being the case, Aegis is not needed. Any semi-capable radar with a 20 mile horizon is just fine. Toss out the unnecessary Standards and engage with ESSM exclusively [backed up by SeaRAM/CIWS for leakers] and you have an AAW defensive system that is just as effective as Aegis/Standard will turn out to be and it will cost a fraction of the price.

Sorry, I do not understand that argument. The advantage of a phased array radar (and SPY-1 is a passive one, i.e. old compared to newer active phased array radars) is not range, but the precision, i.e. the number of targets which can be handled. AEGIS was developed to be able to defend a ship against attacks of a large number of missiles, something the older systems were not able to do and therefore the defence could be easily overwhelmed. The active phased array radars can be even used to guide the missiles, therefore the number of directors is not longer limiting.

@ navydavesof: the Arleigh Burke class Flight III will have a displacement of 9600 long tons vs. 8040 long tons of a Spruance class. Even a Flight I has a displacement of 8184 long tons - i.e. more than a Spruance. A Spruance class hull does not offer more space, because it is more narrow.

[Admiral John Byng]

I am not sure why people want to revive old Spruance hulls. These are destroyer hulls and the A. Burke's are more than capable in that role.

What the US needs is an ASW frigate which can defend itself. It needs a specialized hull with extra silencing technology and state of the art sonars and other ASW equipment.

These will not be cheap but will complement the ABs in the escort role and could be used as hunter-killers.

On a side note, I do not understand (apart from cost) why the USN did not replace the S-3 Viking with a similar kind of aircraft. Thee further away a submarine is detected and killed the less danger to a carrier battle group.

[carr]

..

[carr]

..

[maxim]

A TRS-3D is for sure not comparable in capabilities for missile defence compared to SPY-1 or better radars, e.g. APAR. It has only 16-32 cells compared to 1606 in SPY-1B (similar in later antenna of the same size?) and 12.000 in APAR. Its precision is much less and it has much less possibilities in use. The 12.000 cells in APAR can be individually used for different purposes including guidance (similar to other active phased array radars, e.g. SPY-3 but in contrast to passive phased array radars).

ESSM needs terminal guidance and all ships equipped with ESSM have directors or active phased array radars.

For sure a radar system as TRS-3D or SMART-S can be used for a cheap frigate or a dedicated ASW ship, which is not designed for defending the fleet against missiles and aircraft and which is not designed to survive in high risk areas without support. But for sure it is not a replacement for SPY-1 or the even better radars (e.g. APAR, SPY-3, SAMPSON...).

The hull volume of a Spruance class is not larger compared to an Arleigh Burke - not only the length but also the width matters The slanted hull sides for sure reduce the radar reflection and contribute to survivability, because the water plane would increase with increasing draught (caused by damage). There are no modern warships with vertical hull sides built. But keep in mind that also the Arleigh Burke is also already a 30 year old design and I agree that it was not designed for ASW.

[SumGui]

Block II ESSM does not need guidance radars - they essentially took the AMRAAM seeker and added it to the ESSM:

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/15 ... first-time

Due to be deployed in 2020, which is a fine match for new Frigates.

Not going to agree with the supposition that a Spruance is a 'heavier' built hull than a Burke - I served on both. Spruances had Aluminum superstructures and Burke's are Steel (except the uptakes).

The Spruance layout was more spacious, so access to systems was better, and the layout also allowed for higher modularity.

The Burkes design is effective in reducing signature, I have seen this onboard and offboard of the Burke class, and that also makes countermeasures more effective.

They should have lengthened the Burke hull to add endurance and space for weapons long ago - instead they went with a FLT IIA design that was intentionally kept short in a theater farce of saving money - the steel to extend the hull would not have added that much cost, and we'd really love to have that space now (I am referring to the old FLT III design, not the 'new' FLT III soon to be in production).

[SumGui]

The 1988 FLTIII/1992 DDV High End version had a longer hull and increased hull depth to accommodate two 64 cell mk41 VLS and add Helo hangars.

This version would have been 544.5 ft long displacing 10.578 tons, and they would have had 128 cells and a helo deck that is not so close to the water or placed at the extreme aft.

(FLT I and II are 505 ft, FLT IIA 509 ft, for comparison)

FLT IIA was built instead to save cost.

(Ref: Friedman, US Destroyers Revised Edition, 2004, Naval Institute Press, pp. 403)


The 'new' FLTIII (since they never built the old FLT III they are re-using the reference for some reason...) is the modification to the FLT IIA which is adding the AMDR radar (SPY-6) with reduced radar face sizes to make it fit into the existing superstructure.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AN/SPY-6
"AMDR is intended as a scalable system; the Burke deckhouse can only accommodate a 14-foot version but the USN claim they need a radar of 20 foot or more to meet future ballistic missile threats."

I am willing to bet the larger hull on the aborted FLT III would have given enough margin for the larger SPY-6 Array - and would have had 128 cells.

[carr]

..

[maxim]

I'm not claiming that the two radars are identical. I'm stating that the TRS-3D is functionally just as capable in the 20 mile engagement range of the ESSM and in which AAW warfare will occur.

That is very unlikely regarding the very different capabilities and precision. In addition to the already mentioned differences, TRS-3D is turning (always some area is not seen by the radar).

ESSM Block 2 has active terminal guidance and does not need illuminators.

I have seen SumGui's text and link too - the Block 2 would be there in time for a new frigate, but probably would be still better, if guidance is available - and ESSM Block 2 can be guided.

Because of the slanted sides, the Burke's width is only applicable at the deck edge. The hull slants inward towards the waterline and bottom, significantly reducing the width. The average width is only half the max, or so. The Spruance's vertical sides and greater length give it more hull volume.

Still even the Flight I Arleigh Burke have more displacement indicating more hull volume.