Credo
"Sign on, young man, and sail with me. The stature of our homeland is no more than the measure of ourselves. Our job is to keep her free. Our will is to keep the torch of freedom burning for all. To this solemn purpose we call on the young, the brave, the strong, and the free. Heed my call, Come to the sea. Come Sail with me." -- John Paul Jones
"Pardon him, Theodotus; he is a barbarian, and thinks that the customs of his tribe and island are the laws of nature" --George Bernard Shaw, "Caesar and Cleopatra"
"And those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music."--Friedrich Nietzsche
"A kind Providence has placed in our breasts a hatred of the unjust and cruel, in order that we may preserve ourselves from cruelty and injustice. They who bear cruelty, are accomplices in it. The pretended gentleness which excludes that charitable rancour, produces an indifference which is half an approbation. They never will love where they ought to love, who do not hate where they ought to hate."--Edmund Burke
"Μολὼν λαβέ" -- Leonidas
"Blogito Ergo Sum" -- Neptunus Lex
Don’t feel too bad Skipper. At least you [strike]squids[/strike] sailors will get a couple of ships out the deal. I suppose they will be useful for something as long you keep them away from the really scary threats. Kind of like floating B-2s.
The USAF has spent heaven knows how much in the process of not buying any tanker replacements. All we have to show for it is a couple of jailed contractors and some early retirements.
While we’re speaking of my Air Force, did you know that we are going to the change the name of Minot AFB to ‘Homer Simpson AFB’?
http://formerspook.blogspot.com/2008/08/in-ditch.html
DOH!
Cap’n,
After reading the link and then moseying over to read Galrahn’s post at Information Dissemination, there are some questions that should be asked:
1. With all of the advanced on-board detection systems, and a very advanced gun system, could not the gun system work against inbound Anti-Ship Missiles? The size and speed of the incoming Vampire would certainly make the job more difficult, but even SM-2/3/6 birds don’t always need to hit the target. They just need to get within the warhead’s radius.
2. Why is the Littoral Warfare concept requiring a new series of ship classes? Close-in situations (or where one does not want to put a bird farm) can be addressed with Patrol Torpedo (PT) boats based on LCAC hulls. Using a large mobile platform (aka LHD/LPD) to drive those craft to the party and provide support, even the water around the Horn of Africa or the Spratley Islands could be patrolled by faster, more maneuverable boats.
3. Why the need for an electric drive? Short of the ‘run silent’ crowd, my sonar friends tell me the littoral space is full of noise and shallow water. Not sort of conditions conducive for detecting predatory subs.
On a more personal note, I’d hate to have to endure weathering even a small squall in a Zumwalt’s hull.
Glad to see CNO and I think alike. I’ve been saying for years to sink the Zumwalt’s and build Burkes instead. Great minds think alike (or small minds seldom disagree
)
SeniorD, by “gun system” do you mean the large-caliber gun?
Something about this whole story stinks. Like the linked piece says, sea-skimmers have been around in one form or another since the 1930s — after all, what’s a torpedo-bomber but a primitive sea-skimmer missile with a torpedo as the payload? Yet no one in the entire design-development process realized the ship didn’t have a viable defense against it? I find it hard to believe everybody involved was that stupid or that careless.
Well, an all electric drive makes some sense on its own. It gives you some flexibility switching power between drive and sensors/housekeeping. Done right, it gives good survivability too.
But to have spent $13BILLION dollars on a ship that ain’t even in the water yet, only to find out it can’t shoot the 30 year old SM-2 is a bit staggering.
Better late than never….
Stealth and ships shouldn’t share the same sentence. What looked possible back in the late 80’s for stealthy stuff has been passed by radar and other imagery technology…Consistently. You can’t hide 450′ of steel at sea unless it can submerge.
That it can’t defend itself against sea-skimmers is alarming, but hey, I’m not sure all the other ships don’t have nearly the same problem.
Not good at ASW? Is that news?
I read Zumwalt’s son op-ed piece a couple weeks ago, totally uncompelling about giving a reason to keep developing his father’s class of ship.
We need platforms. The 51 hull gives us platforms. Numbers count. Tangible Navy war ships count. Anything else in science fair and hot air…
b2
I like the idea of PT boats on LCACs, of course I don’t know jack about naval strategy/tactics except for what I read on the net.
Information Dissemination’s post about “motherships” and littoral warfare seems to make a lot of sense to me as well.
Out of curiosity, what do the more experienced members here think about Information Dissemination in general. Is this a credible source of info for someone interested in military issues, especially surface warfare?
I ask this here because I think it will reach more informed ears than in my blog.
Why doesn’t the Navy buy the Coast Guard’s Legend Class as the LCS? From my uninformed eyes they seem very similar.
I’ve had a thought bouncing around my head for a while that would be a similar idea for the Air Force.
Maybe we should start thinking along the lines of buying something similar to the F-16E to keep the numbers up?
1 – There are already a number of F-16 modifications out there, so we don’t have to develop as much from scratch, and I’m fairly sure that some of the things we’ve developed for the -22 and -35 can probably be incorporated.
2 – We can rebuild some of the older F-16s we have around, similar to the Marine’s AH-1Z/UH-1Y program. Though I would like to see new builds as well. Either way, there is a big F-16 logistical base to work from.
3 – Develop an EF-16G from the two-seat F-16F – the Air Force “Growler”. And being an F-16E mod, it needs less specialized logistical support.
6 – National Guard potential – many ANG units have F-16 experience and there is a big pool of trained people to draw from; ANG infrastructure and support costs are less than -22 and -35, and costs might also drop as the ANG units would get new/rebuild aircraft that have full careers ahead of them (I would think this is less in terms of continual investment that would be made to keep an older, more used aircraft flying. Pay a bit more now, but then you have more time to squeeze out of the plane down the line).
7 – A new administration of any stripe and a lame-duck one now gives political maneuvering to do it now/soon. Planes available for the ANG can give us state-level political buy-in.
I wouldn’t kill the F-35 of course, but maybe trim that production down, or stretch it out longer.
All after they sort out this tanker mess, mind you.
Thoughts?
Textron, who made the LCAC, had a LCS design on offer back in the day. Essentially a big ol’ LCAC able to land helos.
Seems to me before the downselect every innovative second-tier or overseas shipbuilder was for some reason required (not by DoD I think but by gaming in order to not get thrown out of the bidding) to partner with a traditionally big ol’ defense contractor. Funny how that worked.
Wolfwalker,
Yeah, the big tubular thing on the pointy end of the boat is called a ‘gun’. Even the big 16″ tubes on the New Jersey and Wisconsin are called ‘guns’.
Now, why use that as a anti-ship killer defense? Well, the quality of the radar tracking system, when combined with the quick reaction and impressive ammunition mix COULD (and I stress the word COULD) be used to track the incoming Vampire and, like the old WWII ‘flak’ guns, put shrapnel in its way. For example, when Aegis was getting built, the question running around JHU/APL and Vitro Labs was ‘how to do shore bombardment?’ Well, it turned out the Mk 86 system could take a designation from SPY-1 on a non-moving shore point. The fire control could then calculate the necessary orders to conduct shore bombardment. The Zumwalt’s integrated sensor suite could do the same thing with a relatively slow moving Vampire.
Wonder how long before CG (X) dies too?
To conttinue:
As to the question of PT/LCACs? Well, the service is top heavy with Captains and Admirals and no real promotion path for the sort of cowboys PT/LCACs would attract. Besides, who wants to hear the ‘2 bells for a O-3 grade ‘Captain’?
The solution is, of course, to have a ’squadron’ of PT/LCACs attached to a large mothership with a 0-6 Captain in overall command. Attach such commands to the Amphib world for some real world ‘feet on the ground’ combat types to root out recalcitrant ‘pirates’.
The way I see it, PT/LCACs provide shore to 12 mile limit, Burkes for 3 to 20 miles limit and the Battle Group outside the 20 mile limit. Nice and layered, flexible and, oh by the way, CHEAPER than 13 billion.
We could call it, “Battlestar Galactica”, or something like that…
McThag, the Navy *could* buy that platform, but the hull is really only the start of the design. All the hull does is determine displacement, draft, and speed given horsepower available. Under the hull is where the specific design happens.
For example, one can’t simply bolt a 5″ rapid-fire gun on your Legend Class hull. There’s magazine space to create, mechanized loaders to install, with fire-breaks along the path so there’s no direct path from gun to magazine. Now add in power requirements (and the by-product, heat) for the fire control systems, space for those systems as well as the other goodies needed in a CIC, a galley and storage to operate for a week or so without replenishment, add in the fuel stores for same…
The ship internals are going to be so different, I suspect the Navy would wind up spending as much to convert that design as they’d spend on a Burke-class ship in the first place.
— Max
SeniorD, the sarcasm wasn’t necessary. I wasn’t sure whether you were referring to the main gun or something lighter, so I asked.
I see from some quick research that the DDG-1000 was supposed to carry two 155mm guns. As far as I know, the heaviest gun ever designed for AA was the ubiquitous Mk 30 5″/38-cal gun — a full inch smaller than the Zumwalt’s guns. In fact, I can’t think of anyone who used 6″ guns for antiaircraft defense in WW2, except in emergency situations. Can a 155mm gun even be effective as an antiaircraft gun? Add the fact that hitting a target that’s on a collision course at high speed is a nontrivial problem, and I find myself thinking that no gun
is going to make a really effective point defense weapon, no matter what caliber it is or what fire-control it has. At most it will be a last-ditch defense like CIWS.
All: That PT-LCAC idea was used by James Cobb in his third mil-fic thriller, Sea Fighter. His “seafighters” were LCACs modified with heavier engines and a moderately impressive array of weaponry: two 30mm cannon; two twin rocket launchers that could fire either Hydra artillery rockets or Hellfire LGMs; capacity for four or eight heavy missiles; three twin fifty-cal machine gun mounts; and as many small arms as could be carried by a squad of Marines.
I seem to recall that during Dubya-Dubya Two guns up to 8″ were used in an AA role. I can only assume they were either shooting grapeshot or had something with a proximity fuse on it.
Of course, if the inbound is flying low there is something to be said for an 8″ hitting the water ahead of it. Shrapnel won’t kill it, but that wall of water is somewhat difficult to fly through.
Nice thing about guns, there’s all sorts of options available on what to fire. Cannister, grape, chain, HE, WP, you name it and there’s going to be a shell capable of delivering.
– Max
There are arguments to be made on both sides.
Any gun of any caliber “can be used” in an AA role. The Japanese Navy developed antiaircraft shells for 16″ battleship main guns, for pete’s sake. How effective were they in that role? Not very, by the accounts I’ve read.
The US Navy put VT (radar proximity) fuses in projectiles of all sizes from 40mm to 5-inch, and they were murderously effective against conventional aircraft. OTOH, it seems from contemporary accounts that even with VT fuses, most AA kills were from crossfire, not by the targeted ship’s own guns. And most were also saturation kills, with so many ships firing multiple shells, and so many shells exploding around the target, that it was nearly inevitable one would eventually do lethal damage. Then there was the simple number of barrels firing: about twenty 5″ guns on a battleship or fleet carrier, 12-16 on a CLAA, 6-8 on a typical CA or CL, five or six on a destroyer, … and still, many kamikazes got through.
Then again, WW2 aircraft were largely empty space. Unless shrapnel hit a vital part (engine, pilot, control cables), the AA fire had to rip the plane apart to stop it. Cruise missiles, with their small, highly streamlined, stuff-filled airframe, may be more vulnerable.
As for the “wall of water” tactic, yes it will work — IF you have the range set just right AND the timing just right AND the inbound is low enough to hit the water spray in the handful of seconds before it falls again. And you’re likely to get only one shot per inbound. Sounds like a big gamble to me.
Could the Zumwalt’s main gun be used as an AA defense? Certainly. Should it be trusted as an effective AA defense against supersonic sea-skimmer missiles? I wouldn’t. Not until it demonstrated its ability to target and hit multiple inbounds from multiple directions with a high rate of success.
Thanks for the answer. I think I phrased my question wrong. Why isn’t the Navy buying Legends as is? From the scanty information I’ve seen it mets the idea. Corvettes and Cutters were similar for years and years.
Wolfwalker,
Cobb’s idea for a PT/LCAC has a basis in early proposals for the basic LCAC design tossed around at JHU/APL in the early ’80s. I’ve read the book(s) several times and, while there are very interesting concepts, the story line was written against a semi-plausable hull configuration. Be that as it may, I think Cobb’s Sea Fighter is a better concept than his Cunningham (aka Zumwalt) class destroyer.
The Raytheon concept for a much larger hull/engine combination lost due to the sheer size and awkwardness of a helo capabable platform (not to mention the cost to engineer the skirt and fans).
There is a very fundamental argument regarding littoral warfare. The Navy must challenge the idea of larger hulls against smaller, faster, more maneuverable hulls. Littoral warfare is not only green water, it is brown water or even no water. The enemy is not battleships, cruisers or even destroyers. Rather, corvettes, frigates, cigarette boats and the odd rubber raft. The environment is restricted and reaction time measured in seconds. PT boats were, pound for pound, some of the most powerful hulls available to the Navy during WWII. Update the idea, improve armor and weapon systems to answer the need. Don’t spend billions on something that is not proven.
Oh, sorry for the sarcasm, the opening was too large to avoid. 8-}
McThag asked “Why isn’t the Navy buying Legends as is?”
Because the Legend class cutter isn’t a warship. Coast Guard cutters in general are not warships. They are coastal patrol and rescue ships with light armament for use in law-enforcement operations. I’d guess that converting a cutter, even a Legend cutter, to a true warship would entail a lot of internal and external modifications, and even then you’d probably wind up with a lot of compromises. If you want a warship, it’s better to build it from the start as a warship.
Which isn’t to say that the Navy couldn’t design a warship on the Legend class hull. 400 feet and 4300 tons is a useful hull size no matter what you want to do with it. OTOH, the Zumwalt is 50% longer and three times the displacement, so it’s debatable whether the Navy planners would accept a Legend hull as big enough.
What a mess my navy has become.
First off Sr D notes
” Close-in situations (or where one does not want to put a bird farm) can be addressed with Patrol Torpedo (PT) boats based on LCAC hulls.”
1) My hole snipe insights tell me that we already know what a PT boat is and does. You know, close in knife fights with bigger ships, slip up behind and stab in the back.
2) this does not help the boots on the beach with bad guys shooting at them. We still need EXPENDABLE hulls with 5″ or larger guns with which to shoot back. There I said it. we need to have enough hulls so that we can loose a few – or several and still deliver the goods.
So, why don’t we base the LCAC on that concept.
3) Personel andAdmin of the thing is a major problem, careerism is it’s name and it’s killing the navy. No one wants to be in a slot with no path to Admiral. That is the biggest problem with the current situation.
There are 300 years of data on hull design to do what you need. We just forgot that people have to have a way to survive and succeed in it.
Wolfwalker –
Regarding the largest caliber gun used as an AA armament (in the USN, at least), there was the 6″ 47 cal. on the CL-144 Worcester class. Only two were built, and each mounted 6 twin 6″ turrets. The 6″ turrets rate of fire, and training and elevation, couldn’t cope with the coming of jet aircraft and anti-ship missiles, so they didn’t serve very long.
The AGS on DDG-1000 is not intended as an AA weapon.
Here you can learn more than you ever wanted about this gun: http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_6-47DP_mk16.htm