(02-16-2020 01:49 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

(02-16-2020 01:23 PM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  

(02-15-2020 11:24 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

(02-15-2020 10:39 PM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  

(02-14-2020 10:53 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  Kelly didnt say anything bad about Trump. He actually said something bad about himself. He is confused about the chain of command and who the boss is, just like IUD Vindman.

You never served?

Playing the service card. Plenty of idiots in the military. I'm glad Trump has democrats defending a few of them even if they are seditious. Maybe it will become a fad for democrats. They seem to favor whatever the hive mind dictates.

If they had done same thing under the previous President you all would be singing their praises. My point was every member is taught to follow orders unless they are unlawful. They were doing what they were trained to do it had nothing to do with D or R it was a question of lawful or unlawful.

Oh we got a saint obama butthurt poster here. Vindman is s secituous bastard. It's pretty simple. Obama was incompetent moron that surrounded himself with the same. So yeah, if it was done under that idiots admin you are probably right.

But so what, obama is gone and his legacy will ge one of incompetence and corruption.

While I mentioned Obama, and my point obviously hit a nerve because you got triggered, My post was about members of the military are trained so follow orders unless they are deemed unlawful. You don’t see the military punishing him do you? Yes I know DHOTUS is the CIC, but the CIC does not get involved in military judicial matters. Oh my bad, this one does to pardon 2 murders.

(02-16-2020 01:53 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  You know---I get that these ships are basically worthless---but it seems to me we paid for 35 hulls and a relatively clever person would figure out a way to make them useful.
The first thing I'd do is fix the engine. Figure out whats wrong---be it maintenance or a weak part---and fix it. Auto manufactures do this all the time during a production run or as a result of a recall.
Second--make the dumb things useful. Redesign the mission modules to use off the shelf technology. They are worthless if they dont work. Ten of these ships can be refitted for basically permanent duty as mine sweepers.
The rest, stick 8-16 VLS cells on them and make then useful. Even 8 cells could give you a load out of 20 Evolved Sea Sparrow missiles (giving the vessels a legitimate anti-aircraft capability) and 3 Tomahawks. They are already adding 8 bolt on Naval Strike Missile cells---so the lack of an over the horizon anti-ship missile has been addressed. The vessel is even more capable if you can put 16 VLS cells on board.
Yes--they will still be pieces of crap, but at least they can be useful. Furthermore, if you can get the TERN drones ready and operational on these vessels, then these vessels would become drone platforms capable of carrying a 1000 pound payload and delivering it 600 miles away. That would mean the craft could attack another ship with a NSM at range of 700 miles. That makes them a decent threat to any modern Russian or Chinese warship. Like I said, they are still pieces of crap that should have never been built---but they are paid for and we are stuck with 35 of them. if we get the engines fixed, slapped some VLS cells on them, and get the TERN drone operational---we might at least make them reasonably functional as a warship. For the life of me----I still cant figure out why we built the last 3 when we already knew we wanted to go another direction.

You can put lipstick on a pig, but all that gets you is a pig with lipstick. These things are so useless that it is probably cheaper to trash and replace than it is to fix them. Ripping out and replacing the engines probably costs more than building from scratch, and with different engines you lose the one thing they had to offer--speed. The one thing a lot of people don't understand is that to get speed they were built flimsy. The SOP is if you take a hit, abandon ship. They have helo decks, but they are so flimsy that they can only take really small helos. Perhaps you can load them with missile tubes and make them arsenal ships, but that's probably the absolute upside.

I've said give them to the Coast Guard, who need new cutters badly. But even given their current shortages of cutters, the Coast Guard does not want to take on the maintenance headache.

Trying to make one platform to fulfill many different missions never turns out well because you always have to make concessions that results in a platform that in the best case scenario is merely adequate but typically is mediocre at everything it's asked to do because of all the concessions required to make it capable of multiple missions.

(02-16-2020 02:24 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  Trying to make one platform to fulfill many different missions never turns out well because you always have to make concessions that results in a platform that in the best case scenario is merely adequate but typically is mediocre at everything it's asked to do because of all the concessions required to make it capable of multiple missions.

The story of the F-111 and the F-35, to cite a couple of particular examples.

(02-16-2020 02:15 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-16-2020 01:53 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  You know---I get that these ships are basically worthless---but it seems to me we paid for 35 hulls and a relatively clever person would figure out a way to make them useful.
The first thing I'd do is fix the engine. Figure out whats wrong---be it maintenance or a weak part---and fix it. Auto manufactures do this all the time during a production run or as a result of a recall.
Second--make the dumb things useful. Redesign the mission modules to use off the shelf technology. They are worthless if they dont work. Ten of these ships can be refitted for basically permanent duty as mine sweepers.
The rest, stick 8-16 VLS cells on them and make then useful. Even 8 cells could give you a load out of 20 Evolved Sea Sparrow missiles (giving the vessels a legitimate anti-aircraft capability) and 3 Tomahawks. They are already adding 8 bolt on Naval Strike Missile cells---so the lack of an over the horizon anti-ship missile has been addressed. The vessel is even more capable if you can put 16 VLS cells on board.
Yes--they will still be pieces of crap, but at least they can be useful. Furthermore, if you can get the TERN drones ready and operational on these vessels, then these vessels would become drone platforms capable of carrying a 1000 pound payload and delivering it 600 miles away. That would mean the craft could attack another ship with a NSM at range of 700 miles. That makes them a decent threat to any modern Russian or Chinese warship. Like I said, they are still pieces of crap that should have never been built---but they are paid for and we are stuck with 35 of them. if we get the engines fixed, slapped some VLS cells on them, and get the TERN drone operational---we might at least make them reasonably functional as a warship. For the life of me----I still cant figure out why we built the last 3 when we already knew we wanted to go another direction.

You can put lipstick on a pig, but all that gets you is a pig with lipstick. These things are so useless that it is probably cheaper to trash and replace than it is to fix them. Ripping out and replacing the engines probably costs more than building from scratch, and with different engines you lose the one thing they had to offer--speed. The one thing a lot of people don't understand is that to get speed they were built flimsy. The SOP is if you take a hit, abandon ship. They have helo decks, but they are so flimsy that they can only take really small helos. Perhaps you can load them with missile tubes and make them arsenal ships, but that's probably the absolute upside.

I've said give them to the Coast Guard, who need new cutters badly. But even given their current shortages of cutters, the Coast Guard does not want to take on the maintenance headache.

Realistically--because of their level of sophistication, electronics, and automation---I suspect most modern ships have a very high probability of being useless if they sustain a single hit. A small dinghy with some explosives came close to sinking a US destroyer. A single mine hit almost sank a Tinconderoga class missile cruiser. A single Exocet hit almost sank a US destroyer. The Brstish lost a couple of ships to a single missile or bomb hits I believe in the Fauklands. That said--while the US ships I mention would have been useless after taking a single hit in an actual battle---they didnt sink. I suspect a LCS would not be able to take any of the hits these other vessels took and stay afloat.

(02-16-2020 03:13 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Realistically--because of their level of sophistication, electronics, and automation---I suspect most modern ships have a very high probability of being useless if they sustain a single hit. A small dinghy with some explosives came close to sinking a US destroyer. A single mine hit almost sank a Tinconderoga class missile cruiser. A single Exocet hit almost sank a US destroyer. The Brstish lost a couple of ships to a single missile or bomb hits I believe in the Fauklands. That said--while the US ships I mention would have been useless after taking a single hit in an actual battle---they didnt sink. I suspect a LCS would not be able to take any of the hits these other vessels took and stay afloat.

There is some question as to how well all the sophisticated electronics will work in battle, and there are reasons to expect not very well. I have long been of the belief that in battle, what is most sophisticated tends to lose to what works better under adverse conditions. The Russians have long been practitioners of a design philosophy that incorporates that principle. I'd like to see less sophisticated backups to complex systems. Our ships have become almost totally reliant on satellite navigation. If some enemy shoots our satellites down on day 1, I'm not sure they could find their way back home on celestial or coastal piloting.

As far as the ships themselves, there has been a tendency to build new combat ships to reduced damage control standards, in order to save money. The Falklands are an interesting study. The Royal Navy took some older ships built to conventional naval standards, along with some newer ships built to less stringent commercial standards. Both groups took some hits. The older ships remained afloat, the newer ones ended up on the bottom. As a result of that, the RN has gone back to more stringent damage control standards for new construction.

I think we need to go back to WWII armor standards. That increases weight (and fuel consumption) and reduces space for habitability and shiny toys somewhat. But I think we offset that by not trying to equip every ship to handle every threat--ASW, AAW, and ASuW. We should go back to something like Elmo Zumwalt's high/low mix of ships. I think we need some larger ships--call them cruisers--that can maybe have room to do all three plus some power projection ashore. But I think we need destroyers that are good at maybe two of them, and smaller escorts and frigates that focus on doing one of them very well. I would see a mix of versatile cruisers, destroyers (like the Burkes) that focus on AAW, smaller escorts that focus on ASW and ASuw, and smaller frigates and corvettes that focus on ASW. And buy building single- and double-focused ships instead of all of them trying to be all things, we end up with cheaper ships that enables us to build more. I could see a blue-water surface Navy of 20 cruisers, 40 destroyers, 60 escorts, and 80 frigates. That force would cost about $300 billion to build, or about $7.5 billion a year to build and maintain over 40 years. Add to that carriers, where I would go for Nimitzes or RAND CVN-LXs at about $9 billion apiece instead of $15 billion apiece for Fords that really have no greater capability (actually less, until they get their catapult, arresting gear, and weapons lift issues sorted). And the amphibious force needs to go back to the basics. We are building LHAs/LHDs at about $4 billion a pop, when we could build a whole amphibious squadron (smaller LHA/LHD, LPH, LPD/LSD, LST, and LPA/LKA) with the same or greater lift capacity for about $1 billion less. And those smaller, cheaper ships could be risked to go in close enough for a proper landing, instead of standing 25-50 miles offshore and sending everything in by helicopter. Helos don't do tanks well. This would free up the existing LHAs/LHDs that still have live left for conversion to STOVL Lightnig Carriers to augment the big carriers and support Marine operations) and the overbuilt San Antonio class LPDs for conversion to anti-ballistic missile defense ships. Finally, on the submarine front, I would augment the numbers by building both some smaller, cheaper nukes and some air-independent propulsion (AIP) conventional subs. There are some missions that only nukes can do. There are others where an AIP might be better suited.

I'd let the manufacturer build the ship with it's own money and that it be tested over and over again to prove its usefulness. Otherwise, the company won't care to do it right the first time because they know that the govmint will keep on shelling out the money. I guess it's all money under the table, that's how pols get rich.

(02-16-2020 05:29 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  I'd let the manufacturer build the ship with it's own money and that it be tested over and over again to prove its usefulness. Otherwise, the company won't care to do it right the first time because they know that the govmint will keep on shelling out the money. I guess it's all money under the table, that's how pols get rich.

Here's how it works. You bid on a project to get it. Then you come up with all sorts of change orders, and that's where you make your money. And the military procurement bureaucracy facilitates it in a couple of ways.

One, they have to keep making changes. A friend of mine was construction superintendent on a carrier at Newport News. He said that he could have saved a bunch of money by building it in some remote site that nobody could get to. It was about a 3-4 hour drive down from DC, so about once a week some admiral would drive down and decide that the radar repeater on the bridge needed to be moved, or something similarly cosmetic. But that required a change order and more money. Next week another admiral would drive down and decide that the repeater needed to be moved somewhere else. All the time the builder is just going cha-ching, cha-thing. What we need to do is build to cost. Design something, take bids on it, and then build what you designed, with no change orders. Anything that needs changing can be done during a future maintenance or shipyard availability.

Two, those officers all have jobs lined up with defense contractors when they retire. So they give a big contract to some company, knowing that in 12-18 months they will be getting their paycheck from that company. Suppose we just said that if you go to work for a defense contractor, your retirement pay is suspended while you work there. It wouldn't totally fix it, but it would place some disincentives.

One other thing that I think we could do is borrow a page from the Royal Navy. They have two classes of line officers, combat/deck and engineering. The combat/deck officers fight the ship and the engineering officers run the ship. Only the combat/deck officers can have command at sea. The comparable jobs for engineering officers are running shore establishments like bases and shipyards/repair facilities. When it comes to design, let senior combat/deck officers determine the specs based on operational/combat requirements, and then let senior engineering officers design the ship to meet those requirements. One other angle to their approach is that the combat/deck officers basically have civilian maritime licenses before they go on the ship, so they are much better aware of how to prevent things like the Fitzgerald and McCain collisions.

(02-16-2020 03:44 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-16-2020 03:13 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Realistically--because of their level of sophistication, electronics, and automation---I suspect most modern ships have a very high probability of being useless if they sustain a single hit. A small dinghy with some explosives came close to sinking a US destroyer. A single mine hit almost sank a Tinconderoga class missile cruiser. A single Exocet hit almost sank a US destroyer. The Brstish lost a couple of ships to a single missile or bomb hits I believe in the Fauklands. That said--while the US ships I mention would have been useless after taking a single hit in an actual battle---they didnt sink. I suspect a LCS would not be able to take any of the hits these other vessels took and stay afloat.

There is some question as to how well all the sophisticated electronics will work in battle, and there are reasons to expect not very well. I have long been of the belief that in battle, what is most sophisticated tends to lose to what works better under adverse conditions. The Russians have long been practitioners of a design philosophy that incorporates that principle. I'd like to see less sophisticated backups to complex systems. Our ships have become almost totally reliant on satellite navigation. If some enemy shoots our satellites down on day 1, I'm not sure they could find their way back home on celestial or coastal piloting.

As far as the ships themselves, there has been a tendency to build new combat ships to reduced damage control standards, in order to save money. The Falklands are an interesting study. The Royal Navy took some older ships built to conventional naval standards, along with some newer ships built to less stringent commercial standards. Both groups took some hits. The older ships remained afloat, the newer ones ended up on the bottom. As a result of that, the RN has gone back to more stringent damage control standards for new construction.

I think we need to go back to WWII armor standards. That increases weight (and fuel consumption) and reduces space for habitability and shiny toys somewhat. But I think we offset that by not trying to equip every ship to handle every threat--ASW, AAW, and ASuW. We should go back to something like Elmo Zumwalt's high/low mix of ships. I think we need some larger ships--call them cruisers--that can maybe have room to do all three plus some power projection ashore. But I think we need destroyers that are good at maybe two of them, and smaller escorts and frigates that focus on doing one of them very well. I would see a mix of versatile cruisers, destroyers (like the Burkes) that focus on AAW, smaller escorts that focus on ASW and ASuw, and smaller frigates and corvettes that focus on ASW. And buy building single- and double-focused ships instead of all of them trying to be all things, we end up with cheaper ships that enables us to build more. I could see a blue-water surface Navy of 20 cruisers, 40 destroyers, 60 escorts, and 80 frigates. That force would cost about $300 billion to build, or about $7.5 billion a year to build and maintain over 40 years. Add to that carriers, where I would go for Nimitzes or RAND CVN-LXs at about $9 billion apiece instead of $15 billion apiece for Fords that really have no greater capability (actually less, until they get their catapult, arresting gear, and weapons lift issues sorted). And the amphibious force needs to go back to the basics. We are building LHAs/LHDs at about $4 billion a pop, when we could build a whole amphibious squadron (smaller LHA/LHD, LPH, LPD/LSD, LST, and LPA/LKA) with the same or greater lift capacity for about $1 billion less. And those smaller, cheaper ships could be risked to go in close enough for a proper landing, instead of standing 25-50 miles offshore and sending everything in by helicopter. Helos don't do tanks well. This would free up the existing LHAs/LHDs that still have live left for conversion to STOVL Lightnig Carriers to augment the big carriers and support Marine operations) and the overbuilt San Antonio class LPDs for conversion to anti-ballistic missile defense ships. Finally, on the submarine front, I would augment the numbers by building both some smaller, cheaper nukes and some air-independent propulsion (AIP) conventional subs. There are some missions that only nukes can do. There are others where an AIP might be better suited.

To your topic of quality---My understanding is that hardly any of these LCS vessels were shock tested. I'd take one of those decommissioned LCS's and give it a proper shock testing. Then I'd pump a shell into it. Then I'd slam missile into it and just see what it can take. That would probably go a long way toward letting you know what you have in the remaining current LCS fleet and what you can feel comfortable doing with it.

If I had command of an LCS and was going to take it into harm's way, I think my primary concern would be making sure all the lifeboats are in good shape.

(02-16-2020 08:16 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  To your topic of quality---My understanding is that hardly any of these LCS vessels were shock tested. I'd take one of those decommissioned LCS's and give it a proper shock testing. Then I'd pump a shell into it. Then I'd slam missile into it and just see what it can take. That would probably go a long way toward letting you know what you have in the remaining current LCS fleet and what you can feel comfortable doing with it.

I don't think the Ford has been shock tested either. And with all the electronics--catapults, arresting gear, weapons lifts--I can't imagine a shock test would go well. Which is probably why we haven't had one. And on the two Aegis destroyers that were involved in collisions, my understanding is that all of their electronics were pretty much kaput from the shock. We don't build ships to take a lick and keep on ticking. And in war that's what happens.

(02-14-2020 03:02 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  How wrong can admirals or generals be? Maybe 30 billion wrong? The Navy leadership recently came about as close to saying they made a huge mistake as you will ever see.

The US Navy has built 32 Littoral Combat Ships---with 3 more still to be built. The ships were to last 25-30 years. They were originally conceived as low cost small heavily armed high speed ships that could operate in shallow water--yet still duke it out in a deep water affair with larger vessels. During the design process they morphed into large fast ships with minimal armament featuring "mission bay modules" that could be easily swapped out to convert the ships quickly into submarine hunters, mine sweepers, or a surface combatant---depending on need.

Fast forward to today. Costs have ballooned. They arent cheap. They have built around 32 of them, with 3 more to come. The high speed engines are unreliable. A decade after ships began entering service, none can really fulfill any mission because none of the mission modules work. Last year none were sent on patrol because they couldnt really perform any mission reliably. Worse yet---the resurgence of modern Russian and Chinese blue water navies have made the ships seriously undergunned in any fight vs their Chinese/Russian peers.

So, the Navy has decided fixing the flaws in these 32 ships (soon to be 35 ships) is not worth the money and will decommission some of these near worthless vessels. Of the 4 ships the Navy proposes to retire, all theoretically have nearly 2 decades of life left--and one is only 6 years old. In all---the 30 billion spent on these vessels (about triple what they were supposed to cost) is likely a complete waste of treasure.

So admirals and generals can make mistakes. Sometimes our general and admirals are flat out wrong. In the case of the Littoral Combat Ship----this decision was right down the fat middle of these guys area of expertise. Imagine how wrong they can sometimes be when they are discussing the course a White House administration should take—-an area that is far afield of a general’s expertise. Im as big a supporter of those who serve as anyone---but we have to remember, anyone can be wrong.

https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2019/1...ade-early/

Generals are appointed by Congress as are Admirals. End of Story. Of course they can be part of the Deep State. Anyone whose advancement is political should be suspect and their conduct is the only evidence to the contrary. It is why at the outbreak of every war the Pentagon has to be cleaned out. We just haven't had a big enough war since WWII to merit the house cleaning and we are paying the price for it.

(02-16-2020 08:27 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Generals are appointed by Congress as are Admirals. End of Story. Of course they can be part of the Deep State. Anyone whose advancement is political should be suspect and their conduct is the only evidence to the contrary. It is why at the outbreak of every war the Pentagon has to be cleaned out. We just haven't had a big enough war since WWII to merit the house cleaning and we are paying the price for it.

Generals and admirals actually go through selection boards that are instructed as to what qualities to emphasize, and the results of the boards are then voted on by congress.

There has been a lot of speculation, in professional military circles with which I still maintain contact, that under Obama, political correctness was emphasized far more for promotions than tactical or strategic competence. Those who speculate in such manner believe that this skewing of the process is at least partially to blame for the Fitzgerald and McCain collisions, as well as at least some of the failings for the Fords and Zumwalts and LCSs. Although those projects were started before Obama, under the idiot Rumsfeld, there have certainly been multiple corners cut and mistakes made along the way.

LTC Vindman, for one, certainly makes sense as a product of that process.

(02-16-2020 08:24 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-16-2020 08:16 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  To your topic of quality---My understanding is that hardly any of these LCS vessels were shock tested. I'd take one of those decommissioned LCS's and give it a proper shock testing. Then I'd pump a shell into it. Then I'd slam missile into it and just see what it can take. That would probably go a long way toward letting you know what you have in the remaining current LCS fleet and what you can feel comfortable doing with it.

I don't think the Ford has been shock tested either. And with all the electronics--catapults, arresting gear, weapons lifts--I can't imagine a shock test would go well. Which is probably why we haven't had one. And on the two Aegis destroyers that were involved in collisions, my understanding is that all of their electronics were pretty much kaput from the shock. We don't build ships to take a lick and keep on ticking. And in war that's what happens.

Thats kinda what Ive always figured based on how poorly our ships have handled prior blasts (or any kinetic damage for that matter). Best I can tell, its all about intercepting a weapon prior to impact or decoying it away. If a bomb in a dinghy with zero penetration ability can cripple a modern warship---I would think a hit by any significant weapons system would be probably take it out of the fight at the very least. A carrier could probably take a hit and operate at some level just because they are so big and their primary battery is really 75 independent systems (the aircraft). Even then--a single hit in the right place that takes out a key system (like the catapults) or starts a fire big enough to damage multiple key systems could take it out of the fight.

(02-16-2020 08:52 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-16-2020 08:24 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-16-2020 08:16 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  To your topic of quality---My understanding is that hardly any of these LCS vessels were shock tested. I'd take one of those decommissioned LCS's and give it a proper shock testing. Then I'd pump a shell into it. Then I'd slam missile into it and just see what it can take. That would probably go a long way toward letting you know what you have in the remaining current LCS fleet and what you can feel comfortable doing with it.

I don't think the Ford has been shock tested either. And with all the electronics--catapults, arresting gear, weapons lifts--I can't imagine a shock test would go well. Which is probably why we haven't had one. And on the two Aegis destroyers that were involved in collisions, my understanding is that all of their electronics were pretty much kaput from the shock. We don't build ships to take a lick and keep on ticking. And in war that's what happens.

Thats kinda what Ive always figured based on how poorly our ships have handled prior blasts (or any kinetic damage for that matter). Best I can tell, its all about intercepting a weapon prior to impact or decoying it away. If a bomb in a dinghy with zero penetration ability can cripple a modern warship---I would think a hit by any significant weapons system would be probably take it out of the fight at the very least. A carrier could probably take a hit and operate at some level just because they are so big and their primary battery is really 75 independent systems (the aircraft). Even then--a single hit in the right place that takes out a key system (like the catapults) or starts a fire big enough to damage multiple key systems could take it out of the fight.

A fire did with Forrestal, and another did with Enterprise.

(02-16-2020 09:11 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-16-2020 08:52 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-16-2020 08:24 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-16-2020 08:16 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  To your topic of quality---My understanding is that hardly any of these LCS vessels were shock tested. I'd take one of those decommissioned LCS's and give it a proper shock testing. Then I'd pump a shell into it. Then I'd slam missile into it and just see what it can take. That would probably go a long way toward letting you know what you have in the remaining current LCS fleet and what you can feel comfortable doing with it.

I don't think the Ford has been shock tested either. And with all the electronics--catapults, arresting gear, weapons lifts--I can't imagine a shock test would go well. Which is probably why we haven't had one. And on the two Aegis destroyers that were involved in collisions, my understanding is that all of their electronics were pretty much kaput from the shock. We don't build ships to take a lick and keep on ticking. And in war that's what happens.

Thats kinda what Ive always figured based on how poorly our ships have handled prior blasts (or any kinetic damage for that matter). Best I can tell, its all about intercepting a weapon prior to impact or decoying it away. If a bomb in a dinghy with zero penetration ability can cripple a modern warship---I would think a hit by any significant weapons system would be probably take it out of the fight at the very least. A carrier could probably take a hit and operate at some level just because they are so big and their primary battery is really 75 independent systems (the aircraft). Even then--a single hit in the right place that takes out a key system (like the catapults) or starts a fire big enough to damage multiple key systems could take it out of the fight.

A fire did with Forrestal, and another did with Enterprise.

Exactly. A hit in the just the right place has always been a danger for any ship. Hood, Bismark, Arizona just to name a few.

(02-16-2020 09:26 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-16-2020 09:11 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-16-2020 08:52 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-16-2020 08:24 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-16-2020 08:16 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  To your topic of quality---My understanding is that hardly any of these LCS vessels were shock tested. I'd take one of those decommissioned LCS's and give it a proper shock testing. Then I'd pump a shell into it. Then I'd slam missile into it and just see what it can take. That would probably go a long way toward letting you know what you have in the remaining current LCS fleet and what you can feel comfortable doing with it.

I don't think the Ford has been shock tested either. And with all the electronics--catapults, arresting gear, weapons lifts--I can't imagine a shock test would go well. Which is probably why we haven't had one. And on the two Aegis destroyers that were involved in collisions, my understanding is that all of their electronics were pretty much kaput from the shock. We don't build ships to take a lick and keep on ticking. And in war that's what happens.

Thats kinda what Ive always figured based on how poorly our ships have handled prior blasts (or any kinetic damage for that matter). Best I can tell, its all about intercepting a weapon prior to impact or decoying it away. If a bomb in a dinghy with zero penetration ability can cripple a modern warship---I would think a hit by any significant weapons system would be probably take it out of the fight at the very least. A carrier could probably take a hit and operate at some level just because they are so big and their primary battery is really 75 independent systems (the aircraft). Even then--a single hit in the right place that takes out a key system (like the catapults) or starts a fire big enough to damage multiple key systems could take it out of the fight.

A fire did with Forrestal, and another did with Enterprise.

Exactly. A hit in the just the right place has always been a danger for any ship. Hood, Bismark, Arizona just to name a few.

The plan with carriers has always been to envelop them in a layered defense that prevents that hit. The big threat that can possibly get through is a very quiet submarine. The Swedes sent one of their AIP boats over to exercise with the Pacific Fleet off San Diego. They managed to get into position multiple times to have recorded kills of carriers, and the fleet ASW forces couldn't find them. I've heard that what they finally had to do was look for spots that were quieter than ambient. But that was in a restricted space. I have thought that we should consider getting some AIPs ourselves. They're much cheaper than nukes, and have fewer crew, so you risk less putting them in harm's way. They are also quieter when sitting (nukes have to run cooling water pumps for their reactors even when not moving). I could see them being used to sit in the gaps in the First Island Chain (Indonesia, Philippines, Taiwan, Japan) to contain Chinese forces inside the Chia Sea, and also loitering inside to gather intel and possibly pick off a few in case of war.

The ocean is a big place, and if you have to cover it with 50-100 subs, your chances of getting close enough to get that kind of shot become pretty remote. If you can sit and wait until one comes right over the top of you, you have a chance, but if you have to chase at all to get in position, then you get noisy and detectable. One thing the navy is looking at now is trying to get an attack aircraft with longer legs. If you have a 1000-mile combat radius instead of 500, them the area from which the carrier can launch air strikes gets a lot larger, and that makes the problem a lot bigger for the submarine.