(06-17-2021 06:50 PM)memtigbb Wrote:  

(06-17-2021 01:50 PM)swagsurfer11 Wrote:  

(06-17-2021 01:06 PM)ODU BBALL Wrote:  

(06-17-2021 12:29 PM)swagsurfer11 Wrote:  

(06-15-2021 11:22 AM)CrimsonPhantom Wrote:  Link

Confederate flags and naming bases after Confederate traitors is ok but BLM flag is not?

They weren't traitors. They were fighting for their homes and their state. To call them traitors is like calling the people living in the community of Buckhead traitors because they want to leave Atlanta and form their own city since Atlanta is no longer serving their needs.

BS. They took up arms against their country.

trai·tor/ˈtrādər/
Learn to pronounce
noun
noun: traitor; plural noun: traitors
a person who betrays a friend, country, principle, etc.

No, they seceded and formed a new country that was then attacked by their former country and were forced to defend themselves.

I know you can see the difference.

Go ahead, secede your house and form a new country. See how that turns out.

The Ford shock test is something of a joke. For one thing, it was delayed massively. For another, they offloaded a bunch of equipment before conducting the shock test, so it really isn't the test it is supposed to be.

On the new cruiser topic I thought the Flight 3 Burke basically was the cruiser replacement? Upgraded power generation and air defense that matches the ticondaroga was one of the goals.

The narrow beam of the ticondaroga seems to be a road block to modernization.

(06-20-2021 06:44 PM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  On the new cruiser topic I thought the Flight 3 Burke basically was the cruiser replacement? Upgraded power generation and air defense that matches the ticondaroga was one of the goals.
The narrow beam of the ticondaroga seems to be a road block to modernization.

The Burke III's lack substantial capabilities that the Ticos had in the area of command and control. I think the Navy unfortunately sees the FFG(X) converted FREMMs (which have significantly less capability) as the numerical replacement for the Ticos, and the Burke III's taking over the Tico command and control functions. Basically it's a step down in capability from Ticos to Burkes and from Burkes to FFG(X)s. Meanwhile, nothing has been done to address a crucial shortage of reliable anti-submarine warfare (ASW) platforms and anti-surface (ASuW, including anti-ship) missiles.

But the Navy has wasted so much on colossal wastes like the LCSs ($30B for 35 ships that don't work and have to be towed back home when they try to deploy), the Ford carriers (probably $55-60B on 4 carriers that the catapults, arresting gear, weapons lifts, and now toilets don't work), the Zumwalts ($12B for three ships with guns for which there are no bullets), the F-35s ($120MM each for an airplane that tries to combine three different needs and ends up meeting none of them) that I simply don't trust their judgement on any new ship or weapons system.

(06-20-2021 07:47 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-20-2021 06:44 PM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  On the new cruiser topic I thought the Flight 3 Burke basically was the cruiser replacement? Upgraded power generation and air defense that matches the ticondaroga was one of the goals.
The narrow beam of the ticondaroga seems to be a road block to modernization.

The Burke III's lack substantial capabilities that the Ticos had in the area of command and control. I think the Navy unfortunately sees the FFG(X) converted FREMMs (which have significantly less capability) as the numerical replacement for the Ticos, and the Burke III's taking over the Tico command and control functions. Basically it's a step down in capability from Ticos to Burkes and from Burkes to FFG(X)s. Meanwhile, nothing has been done to address a crucial shortage of reliable anti-submarine warfare (ASW) platforms and anti-surface (ASuW, including anti-ship) missiles.

But the Navy has wasted so much on colossal wastes like the LCSs ($30B for 35 ships that don't work and have to be towed back home when they try to deploy), the Ford carriers (probably $55-60B on 4 carriers that the catapults, arresting gear, weapons lifts, and now toilets don't work), the Zumwalts ($12B for three ships with guns for which there are no bullets), the F-35s ($100MM each for an airplane that tries to combine three different needs and ends up meeting none of them) that I simply don't trust their judgement on any new ship or weapons system.

I saw an idea the other day that was too logical for the US government to use. Ditch the fancy gun with no ammo and mount MLRS on a stabilized mount on the zumwalts to give them 70km ground pounding range. It sounded like the marines had tested firing a tracked MLRS from an LHD.

I know it would have been stupid expensive, but it would have been cool to put the Iowa class back to sea with the rear turret replaced with a 96 cell vertical cell launcher to go with the 10 coffin box launchers and 6 x 16in guns.

(06-20-2021 09:02 PM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  I saw an idea the other day that was too logical for the US government to use. Ditch the fancy gun with no ammo and mount MLRS on a stabilized mount on the Zumwalts to give them 70km ground pounding range. It sounded like the marines had tested firing a tracked MLRS from an LHD.
I know it would have been stupid expensive, but it would have been cool to put the Iowa class back to sea with the rear turret replaced with a 96 cell vertical cell launcher to go with the 10 coffin box launchers and 6 x 16in guns.

I have some ideas that I'd like to see.

Your MLRS on a frigate with 2 155mm guns that use Army 155mm howitzer ammo, and counter-battery radar and fire control, for close-in fire support of amphibious and ashore operations. It would be part of the amphibious squadron.

A battleship based on the 1980s battlecarrier concept (1). That replaced the rear turret with 320 VLS cells and an angled deck with ski jump for 20 AV-8s. I would replace 128 of the VLS cells with larger cells (on a 4:1 basis) to carry 32 large missiles, either supersonic/hypersonic anti-ship/anti-surface cruise missiles like the Russian Shipwreck that the Kirovs carried or a short/intermediate-range-ballistic-missile (SRBM/IRBM).

A cruiser to replace the Ticos based on a Des Moines hull, with 8-inch gun mounts fore and aft, 128 regular VLS cells and 16 large cells, and a flight deck in the middle to operate multiple helos and UAVs, with a hangar underneath from which small USVs and UUVs could be launched over the side. It would look something like the WWII flight deck cruiser concept (2).

One thing that killed both the battlecarrier and the flight deck cruiser was headcount requirements, particularly the number of people needed to run the steam propulsion plants. I'd go with something less labor intensive, like the Makin Island hybrid diesel-electric/gas turbine plant. It produces 70,000 HP and drives a 40,000T boxy LHD hull through the water at up to 25 knots. That should be enough to drive a streamlined 20,000T cruiser hull well over 30 knots. And 2 of them would fit in the battleship, and give it 140,000 HP, while a similar turbo-electric plant producing 160,000 HP powered the 90,000T French liner Normandie up to 34 knots so that should give enough speed for a 60,000T battle carrier.

I would also build a mix of nuclear and conventional carriers, in sufficient numbers to form 2-carrier (1 nuke, 1 conventional) carrier battle groups (CVBGs) that would pair up to form the modern version of ADM Marc Mitscher's WWII 4-carrier carrier task forces (CTFs). In that structure, the nukes would be Nimitzes, not Fords, and the conventional CVs would be Kitty Hawks. I would guess that we could construct a Nimitz ($9B) and a Kitty ($6B) for about the cost of a Ford ($14B) and get almost twice the capability for roughly the same bucks. As an interim measure, while waiting for the conventional carriers to be built, I would convert the LHAs/LHDs to interim Lightning Carriers to work with the CVNs. I would guess that their service lives would expire about the time that new conventional carriers could be built and enter the fleet, at which time they'd be swapped out on a 1-for-1 basis.

For sailors for these ships, I'd look to restructure the Navy's existing personnel. CBO says the Navy and Marines together have 234,000 active duty combat personnel, 94,000 active duty combat support personnel, 204,000 active duty admin/overhead personnel, and 97,000 reservists, total 629,000 (3). I would cut admin/overhead in half, move 1/3 to combat, 1/6 to combat support, and the rest to the reserves, plus doubling the reserves. Result would be 268,000 combat, 111,000 combat support, 102,000 admin/overhead, and 194,000 reservists, total 675,000.

I've got more ideas, including completely restructuring our amphibious fleet, but those are enough for now.

(1) https://warisboring.com/the-battlecarrie...t-carrier/
(2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_deck_cruiser
(3) https://www.cbo.gov/publication/57088

Quote:Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Michael Gilday would not say whether he thought capitalism was racist during a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on Tuesday.

Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) questioned Gilday about adding Ibram X. Kendi’s book, How to Be an Antiracist, on the recommended reading list for every sailor, and asked Gilday if he agreed with its primary assumptions, including that capitalism is racist.

Cotton said: “You’re saying as a senior leader of the Navy that you want 18-year-old sailors and 22-year-old ensigns to read a book that asserts that capitalism is essentially racist. Do you agree that capitalism is essentially racist?”

Gilday responded: “Sir, with all due respect, I’m not going to engage without understanding the context of statements like that.”

Cotton: “In what context could the claim that capitalism is essentially racist possibly be something with which you agree?”

Gilday responded: “Sir I’d have to go back to the book to take a look at that… I believe we can trust them to read books like that and draw reasonable conclusions.”

Cotton then retorted it was not a matter of trust, but a matter of time. “You, as the chief of naval operations, are suggesting in your professional reading that it’s a worthwhile endeavor for our sailors and ensigns to spend the time reading books like these as opposed to reading books on maritime strategy or basic seafaring skills.”

In a Time interview in 2019, Kendi argued that racism and capitalism are inseparable and will “die together.” He said:

What’s really happening, particularly among the left, is a debate over how we define capitalism. What I tried to show in [Antiracist] is that you can’t separate capitalism from racism, that they were birthed during the same period in the same area and have grown together, damaged together and will one day die together.

Cotton also cited other assertions made by Kendi in his book, including that the only remedy for past discrimination is present discrimination, the only remedy for present discrimination is future discrimination; that some individuals by virtue of his or her race are inherently oppressive or privileged while others are victimized or oppressed; and that individuals can bear some kind of collective responsibility or collective guilt of actions committed by his or her race.

He asked Gilday how the book ended up on his reading list.

Gilday defended his decision, saying that he wanted sailors to read about internal threats and think critically in a world of misinformation. He said:

Sir, I chose a variety of books. There are over 50 books on my reading list to give my sailors a wide range of information from which I hope they can make facts-based decisions on both their ability to look outwardly at potential aggressors like China and Russia, as well as looking inwardly and being honest with themselves in areas they need to improve. In talking to sailors over the past year, it’s clearly obvious to me and others that the murder of George Floyd and the events surrounding that and the discussions in this country about racism which go back for years and years and years are still a painful part of our culture and that talking about them, understanding them is the best approach.

And that offering books like Kendi’s for people to read — and they don’t have to agree with every assertion that Kendi makes — I don’t agree with every assertion that Kendi makes, I would think that all sailors would as well, but they need to be exposed to it, so that they’re making facts-based — we need critical thinkers in the Navy and throughout the military, and our enlisted force, again, we don’t only think outwardly but inwardly so they make objective, hopefully objective, facts-based, decisions, or draw conclusions in a world that is increasingly more difficult to get an unbiased view of a really tough problem. Even if they’re looking at things on social media, artificial intelligence associated with those platforms feeds them more of whatever they tend to look at. I’m offering them one book among 53 as a different perspective.

Cotton then chided Gilday on other “genuine cultural problems” he considered more pressing, including collisions at sea, a ship catching fire in port, and the Fat Leonard scandal that involved massive corruption among sailors in the Asia Pacific.

“Assigning books like these and encouraging your sailors to take the time to do so is not a way for the Navy to regain its focus, Admiral,” he told Gilday.

Last week, Gilday testified to the House Armed Services Committee that he read Kendi’s book. He also dodged questions on whether he agreed with Kendi’s past statements.

Link

(06-20-2021 07:47 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-20-2021 06:44 PM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  On the new cruiser topic I thought the Flight 3 Burke basically was the cruiser replacement? Upgraded power generation and air defense that matches the ticondaroga was one of the goals.
The narrow beam of the ticondaroga seems to be a road block to modernization.

The Burke III's lack substantial capabilities that the Ticos had in the area of command and control. I think the Navy unfortunately sees the FFG(X) converted FREMMs (which have significantly less capability) as the numerical replacement for the Ticos, and the Burke III's taking over the Tico command and control functions. Basically it's a step down in capability from Ticos to Burkes and from Burkes to FFG(X)s. Meanwhile, nothing has been done to address a crucial shortage of reliable anti-submarine warfare (ASW) platforms and anti-surface (ASuW, including anti-ship) missiles.

But the Navy has wasted so much on colossal wastes like the LCSs ($30B for 35 ships that don't work and have to be towed back home when they try to deploy), the Ford carriers (probably $55-60B on 4 carriers that the catapults, arresting gear, weapons lifts, and now toilets don't work), the Zumwalts ($12B for three ships with guns for which there are no bullets), the F-35s ($100MM each for an airplane that tries to combine three different needs and ends up meeting none of them) that I simply don't trust their judgement on any new ship or weapons system.

I think the Command and Control aspects of CG's is overstated. And Tico's were AAW platforms so they were never going to be tasked with primary ASW functions. Ideally, If the Zuwalts were more price competitive, they would be the replacement for the Tico's.

The Burke's III exist it is the only successful shipbuilding program the Surface Navy has. Unfortunately, DDG's are AAW platforms as well and the FREMM's will fall into that role too. The USN has been unserious about Surface ASW for more than 20 years and that doesn't appear to be changing.

(06-22-2021 02:03 PM)CrimsonPhantom Wrote:  

Quote:Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Michael Gilday would not say whether he thought capitalism was racist during a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on Tuesday.
Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) questioned Gilday about adding Ibram X. Kendi’s book, How to Be an Antiracist, on the recommended reading list for every sailor, and asked Gilday if he agreed with its primary assumptions, including that capitalism is racist.
Cotton said: “You’re saying as a senior leader of the Navy that you want 18-year-old sailors and 22-year-old ensigns to read a book that asserts that capitalism is essentially racist. Do you agree that capitalism is essentially racist?”
Gilday responded: “Sir, with all due respect, I’m not going to engage without understanding the context of statements like that.”
Cotton: “In what context could the claim that capitalism is essentially racist possibly be something with which you agree?”
Gilday responded: “Sir I’d have to go back to the book to take a look at that… I believe we can trust them to read books like that and draw reasonable conclusions.”
Cotton then retorted it was not a matter of trust, but a matter of time. “You, as the chief of naval operations, are suggesting in your professional reading that it’s a worthwhile endeavor for our sailors and ensigns to spend the time reading books like these as opposed to reading books on maritime strategy or basic seafaring skills.”
In a Time interview in 2019, Kendi argued that racism and capitalism are inseparable and will “die together.” He said:
What’s really happening, particularly among the left, is a debate over how we define capitalism. What I tried to show in [Antiracist] is that you can’t separate capitalism from racism, that they were birthed during the same period in the same area and have grown together, damaged together and will one day die together.
Cotton also cited other assertions made by Kendi in his book, including that the only remedy for past discrimination is present discrimination, the only remedy for present discrimination is future discrimination; that some individuals by virtue of his or her race are inherently oppressive or privileged while others are victimized or oppressed; and that individuals can bear some kind of collective responsibility or collective guilt of actions committed by his or her race.
He asked Gilday how the book ended up on his reading list.
Gilday defended his decision, saying that he wanted sailors to read about internal threats and think critically in a world of misinformation. He said:
Sir, I chose a variety of books. There are over 50 books on my reading list to give my sailors a wide range of information from which I hope they can make facts-based decisions on both their ability to look outwardly at potential aggressors like China and Russia, as well as looking inwardly and being honest with themselves in areas they need to improve. In talking to sailors over the past year, it’s clearly obvious to me and others that the murder of George Floyd and the events surrounding that and the discussions in this country about racism which go back for years and years and years are still a painful part of our culture and that talking about them, understanding them is the best approach.
And that offering books like Kendi’s for people to read — and they don’t have to agree with every assertion that Kendi makes — I don’t agree with every assertion that Kendi makes, I would think that all sailors would as well, but they need to be exposed to it, so that they’re making facts-based — we need critical thinkers in the Navy and throughout the military, and our enlisted force, again, we don’t only think outwardly but inwardly so they make objective, hopefully objective, facts-based, decisions, or draw conclusions in a world that is increasingly more difficult to get an unbiased view of a really tough problem. Even if they’re looking at things on social media, artificial intelligence associated with those platforms feeds them more of whatever they tend to look at. I’m offering them one book among 53 as a different perspective.
Cotton then chided Gilday on other “genuine cultural problems” he considered more pressing, including collisions at sea, a ship catching fire in port, and the Fat Leonard scandal that involved massive corruption among sailors in the Asia Pacific.
“Assigning books like these and encouraging your sailors to take the time to do so is not a way for the Navy to regain its focus, Admiral,” he told Gilday.
Last week, Gilday testified to the House Armed Services Committee that he read Kendi’s book. He also dodged questions on whether he agreed with Kendi’s past statements.

Link

Gilday is delusional, on this and many other subjects. He still seems to think the LCSs are a good idea.

(06-23-2021 09:30 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-22-2021 02:03 PM)CrimsonPhantom Wrote:  

Quote:Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Michael Gilday would not say whether he thought capitalism was racist during a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on Tuesday.
Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) questioned Gilday about adding Ibram X. Kendi’s book, How to Be an Antiracist, on the recommended reading list for every sailor, and asked Gilday if he agreed with its primary assumptions, including that capitalism is racist.
Cotton said: “You’re saying as a senior leader of the Navy that you want 18-year-old sailors and 22-year-old ensigns to read a book that asserts that capitalism is essentially racist. Do you agree that capitalism is essentially racist?”
Gilday responded: “Sir, with all due respect, I’m not going to engage without understanding the context of statements like that.”
Cotton: “In what context could the claim that capitalism is essentially racist possibly be something with which you agree?”
Gilday responded: “Sir I’d have to go back to the book to take a look at that… I believe we can trust them to read books like that and draw reasonable conclusions.”
Cotton then retorted it was not a matter of trust, but a matter of time. “You, as the chief of naval operations, are suggesting in your professional reading that it’s a worthwhile endeavor for our sailors and ensigns to spend the time reading books like these as opposed to reading books on maritime strategy or basic seafaring skills.”
In a Time interview in 2019, Kendi argued that racism and capitalism are inseparable and will “die together.” He said:
What’s really happening, particularly among the left, is a debate over how we define capitalism. What I tried to show in [Antiracist] is that you can’t separate capitalism from racism, that they were birthed during the same period in the same area and have grown together, damaged together and will one day die together.
Cotton also cited other assertions made by Kendi in his book, including that the only remedy for past discrimination is present discrimination, the only remedy for present discrimination is future discrimination; that some individuals by virtue of his or her race are inherently oppressive or privileged while others are victimized or oppressed; and that individuals can bear some kind of collective responsibility or collective guilt of actions committed by his or her race.
He asked Gilday how the book ended up on his reading list.
Gilday defended his decision, saying that he wanted sailors to read about internal threats and think critically in a world of misinformation. He said:
Sir, I chose a variety of books. There are over 50 books on my reading list to give my sailors a wide range of information from which I hope they can make facts-based decisions on both their ability to look outwardly at potential aggressors like China and Russia, as well as looking inwardly and being honest with themselves in areas they need to improve. In talking to sailors over the past year, it’s clearly obvious to me and others that the murder of George Floyd and the events surrounding that and the discussions in this country about racism which go back for years and years and years are still a painful part of our culture and that talking about them, understanding them is the best approach.
And that offering books like Kendi’s for people to read — and they don’t have to agree with every assertion that Kendi makes — I don’t agree with every assertion that Kendi makes, I would think that all sailors would as well, but they need to be exposed to it, so that they’re making facts-based — we need critical thinkers in the Navy and throughout the military, and our enlisted force, again, we don’t only think outwardly but inwardly so they make objective, hopefully objective, facts-based, decisions, or draw conclusions in a world that is increasingly more difficult to get an unbiased view of a really tough problem. Even if they’re looking at things on social media, artificial intelligence associated with those platforms feeds them more of whatever they tend to look at. I’m offering them one book among 53 as a different perspective.
Cotton then chided Gilday on other “genuine cultural problems” he considered more pressing, including collisions at sea, a ship catching fire in port, and the Fat Leonard scandal that involved massive corruption among sailors in the Asia Pacific.
“Assigning books like these and encouraging your sailors to take the time to do so is not a way for the Navy to regain its focus, Admiral,” he told Gilday.
Last week, Gilday testified to the House Armed Services Committee that he read Kendi’s book. He also dodged questions on whether he agreed with Kendi’s past statements.

Link

Gilday is delusional, on this and many other subjects. He still seems to think the LCSs are a good idea.

How can anyone still think that? They are worthless as currently designed. Im still trying to figure out why we built the last 3.

(06-23-2021 10:34 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  How can anyone still think that? They are worthless as currently designed. Im still trying to figure out why we built the last 3.

Or the first 32.

My only thought. Give them to the Coast Guard (and I mean give, there's no way they would pay anything for them). They might be heavily enough armed, their speed could be useful, and their engineering casualties would be less of a problem on local ops. If they won't take them, offer to any ally desperate for hulls, again free. If they won't take them, SINKEX.

(06-23-2021 11:58 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-23-2021 10:34 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  How can anyone still think that? They are worthless as currently designed. Im still trying to figure out why we built the last 3.

Or the first 32.

My only thought. Give them to the Coast Guard (and I mean give, there's no way they would pay anything for them). They might be heavily enough armed, their speed could be useful, and their engineering casualties would be less of a problem on local ops. If they won't take them, offer to any ally desperate for hulls, again free. If they won't take them, SINKEX.

This is where you and I differ. I agree they suck, but I also think they represent a 35 hulls and a decade of ship building. We need to figure out a way to make them somewhat servicable. My preference would be to fix the darn engines (and make it clear to the builders they wont see another contract until they do). Dump the modules that dont work. Replace the modules with 24 to 32 VLS cells (in addition to the existing pair of Naval Strike missile 4-cell boxes) and you have a somewhat serviceable light escort. If you forward deploy the vessels that should also minimize the miles on that shaky drive train. Id also look at giving them an off the shelf long range drone like the Bell-247 that can give them long range intelligence/strike capabilities that might add substantially to their usefulness and flexibility. If the off the shelf long range drones can also perform ASW functions effectively--maybe thats a way the vessels can at least make some contribution in an area of weakness you've mentioned before.

My sense is we are stuck with these as a significant component of the navy for a while---so we need to figure out a way to get something out of them. We've had some crappy ships before---you use what you have. Its going to be a while before we can build our way out of this error so we need to figure out a way to make the best of these hulls for a decade or more.

(06-23-2021 12:56 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-23-2021 11:58 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-23-2021 10:34 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  How can anyone still think that? They are worthless as currently designed. Im still trying to figure out why we built the last 3.

Or the first 32.

My only thought. Give them to the Coast Guard (and I mean give, there's no way they would pay anything for them). They might be heavily enough armed, their speed could be useful, and their engineering casualties would be less of a problem on local ops. If they won't take them, offer to any ally desperate for hulls, again free. If they won't take them, SINKEX.

This is where you and I differ. I agree they suck, but I also think they represent a 35 hulls and a decade of ship building. We need to figure out a way to make them somewhat servicable. My preference would be to fix the darn engines (and make it clear to the builders they wont see another contract until they do). Dump the modules that dont work. Replace the modules with 24 to 32 VLS cells (in addition to the existing pair of Naval Strike missile 4-cell boxes) and you have a somewhat serviceable light escort. If you forward deploy the vessels that should also minimize the miles on that shaky drive train. Id also look at giving them an off the shelf long range drone like the Bell-247 that can give them long range intelligence/strike capabilities that might add substantially to their usefulness and flexibility. If the off the shelf long range drones can also perform ASW functions effectively--maybe thats a way the vessels can at least make some contribution in an area of weakness you've mentioned before.

My sense is we are stuck with these as a significant component of the navy for a while---so we need to figure out a way to get something out of them. We've had some crappy ships before---you use what you have. Its going to be a while before we can build our way out of this error so we need to figure out a way to make the best of these hulls for a decade or more.

The engine issue is what precludes them from replacing PC's or Fast Missile boat you suggest Coog. You are probably talking about a $100M to redo the drive train on every LCS.

I don’t have anything productive to add other than to say this has been a fascinating read since I don’t know jack about the Navy.

What we need IMO is to build a bunch of cheap ASW frigates. The Knoxes and Perrys were very limited ships, but they contributed greatly to winning Cold War I. Then we forgot about ASW. I'd build 80 or so of something like this:

- 3500-4000T
- Stealth profile
- CODLAG or IEP propulsion for quiet running, 2 shafts, 30 knots
- 1x 76 mm Super Rapid STRALES/DART
- 1 SeaRAM and 2 Phalanx CIWS, minimum
- 4 fixed reloadable torpedo tubes (2-12.75" and 2-21", one of each to each side, stacked, like Knox layout, in torpedo room with automatic reload equipment)
- 2 ASW rocket depth charge launchers similar to Russian RBUs
- 32-cell VLS for 32 quad-packed ESSM, 12 VL-ASROC, and 12 NSM
- VDS
- Bow mounted multi-frequency sonar
- SQR-20 Multi-function towed array
- Wide aperture lightweight fiber optic passive sonar array (like Virginia class side arrays)
- 2 helos (or at minimum, 1 helo and 1 drone)
- TRS-3D/4D radar

This would be an ASW specialist, with self-defense ASuW and AAW. The Knox hull could be a starting point, modified to accommodate 2 shafts.

(06-23-2021 02:11 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(06-23-2021 12:56 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-23-2021 11:58 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-23-2021 10:34 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  How can anyone still think that? They are worthless as currently designed. Im still trying to figure out why we built the last 3.

Or the first 32.

My only thought. Give them to the Coast Guard (and I mean give, there's no way they would pay anything for them). They might be heavily enough armed, their speed could be useful, and their engineering casualties would be less of a problem on local ops. If they won't take them, offer to any ally desperate for hulls, again free. If they won't take them, SINKEX.

This is where you and I differ. I agree they suck, but I also think they represent a 35 hulls and a decade of ship building. We need to figure out a way to make them somewhat servicable. My preference would be to fix the darn engines (and make it clear to the builders they wont see another contract until they do). Dump the modules that dont work. Replace the modules with 24 to 32 VLS cells (in addition to the existing pair of Naval Strike missile 4-cell boxes) and you have a somewhat serviceable light escort. If you forward deploy the vessels that should also minimize the miles on that shaky drive train. Id also look at giving them an off the shelf long range drone like the Bell-247 that can give them long range intelligence/strike capabilities that might add substantially to their usefulness and flexibility. If the off the shelf long range drones can also perform ASW functions effectively--maybe thats a way the vessels can at least make some contribution in an area of weakness you've mentioned before.

My sense is we are stuck with these as a significant component of the navy for a while---so we need to figure out a way to get something out of them. We've had some crappy ships before---you use what you have. Its going to be a while before we can build our way out of this error so we need to figure out a way to make the best of these hulls for a decade or more.

The engine issue is what precludes them from replacing PC's or Fast Missile boat you suggest Coog. You are probably talking about a $100M to redo the drive train on every LCS.

Perhaps---but that would be a bargain compared to the 7.6 billion we spent on modules that dont work. For far less than 7.6 billion you can convert 35 essentially useless hulls into a fleet of low end escorts. If the goal is a 350 ship Navy---you cant get there dumping a decade of ship building. I guess my view is if you have a 350 ship Navy---every vessel doesnt have to be tops in its class. lol...for the money we paid I agree that they should be tops in their class....but we are where we are.

If we can get these to be reasonably capable low end escorts for the next 10 to 20 years while we build the new frigate and replace aging Burkes and Ticons---then in my view---thats a win.

(06-23-2021 02:44 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  What we need IMO is to build a bunch of cheap ASW frigates. The Knoxes and Perrys were very limited ships, but they contributed greatly to winning Cold War I. Then we forgot about ASW. I'd build 80 or so of something like this:

- 3500-4000T
- Stealth profile
- CODLAG or IEP propulsion for quiet running, 2 shafts, 30 knots
- 1x 76 mm Super Rapid STRALES/DART
- 1-2 Phalanx CIWS
- 4 fixed reloadable torpedo tubes (2-12.75" and 2-21", one of each to each side, like Knox layout)
- 2 ASW rocket depth charge launchers similar to Russian RBUs
- 32-cell VLS for 32 quad-packed ESSM, 12 VL-ASROC, and 12 NSM
- VDS
- Bow mounted multi-frequency sonar
- SQR-20 Multi-function towed array
- Wide aperture lightweight fiber optic passive sonar array (like Virginia class side arrays)
- 2 helos (or at minimum, 1 helo and 1 drone)
- TRS-3D/4D radar

This would be an ASW specialist, with self-defense ASuW and AAW. The Knox hull could be a starting point.

After the disaster of the LCS, I really like the idea of starting with a proven platform.

(06-23-2021 02:11 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(06-23-2021 12:56 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-23-2021 11:58 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-23-2021 10:34 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  How can anyone still think that? They are worthless as currently designed. Im still trying to figure out why we built the last 3.

Or the first 32.
My only thought. Give them to the Coast Guard (and I mean give, there's no way they would pay anything for them). They might be heavily enough armed, their speed could be useful, and their engineering casualties would be less of a problem on local ops. If they won't take them, offer to any ally desperate for hulls, again free. If they won't take them, SINKEX.

This is where you and I differ. I agree they suck, but I also think they represent a 35 hulls and a decade of ship building. We need to figure out a way to make them somewhat servicable. My preference would be to fix the darn engines (and make it clear to the builders they wont see another contract until they do). Dump the modules that dont work. Replace the modules with 24 to 32 VLS cells (in addition to the existing pair of Naval Strike missile 4-cell boxes) and you have a somewhat serviceable light escort. If you forward deploy the vessels that should also minimize the miles on that shaky drive train. Id also look at giving them an off the shelf long range drone like the Bell-247 that can give them long range intelligence/strike capabilities that might add substantially to their usefulness and flexibility. If the off the shelf long range drones can also perform ASW functions effectively--maybe thats a way the vessels can at least make some contribution in an area of weakness you've mentioned before.
My sense is we are stuck with these as a significant component of the navy for a while---so we need to figure out a way to get something out of them. We've had some crappy ships before---you use what you have. Its going to be a while before we can build our way out of this error so we need to figure out a way to make the best of these hulls for a decade or more.

The engine issue is what precludes them from replacing PC's or Fast Missile boat you suggest Coog. You are probably talking about a $100M to redo the drive train on every LCS.

Suppose $100MM per ship is the cost to fix the engines. Would the USCG take 35 cutters that their cost was $100MM each for the engine fix? I think they would. Rather than try to make it fit Navy needs, I'd rather build the 80 or so ASW frigates that I proposed, and for each two ASW frigates, turn one LCS over to the USCG. Do that, hang on to the Ticos and Burkes for AAW until their full service lives (another 10 years or so), come up with a true cruiser to replace the Ticos by then, and build the FFG(X)s more to a FREMM GP standard than the baby Burkes that we seem to be going for. By 2050, we could have 20 true cruisers, 40 legacy Burkes still in service, 60 FREMM GPs, and 80 ASW frigates. I think that would form a very competent surface escort force.

(06-23-2021 03:14 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-23-2021 02:11 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(06-23-2021 12:56 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-23-2021 11:58 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-23-2021 10:34 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  How can anyone still think that? They are worthless as currently designed. Im still trying to figure out why we built the last 3.

Or the first 32.
My only thought. Give them to the Coast Guard (and I mean give, there's no way they would pay anything for them). They might be heavily enough armed, their speed could be useful, and their engineering casualties would be less of a problem on local ops. If they won't take them, offer to any ally desperate for hulls, again free. If they won't take them, SINKEX.

This is where you and I differ. I agree they suck, but I also think they represent a 35 hulls and a decade of ship building. We need to figure out a way to make them somewhat servicable. My preference would be to fix the darn engines (and make it clear to the builders they wont see another contract until they do). Dump the modules that dont work. Replace the modules with 24 to 32 VLS cells (in addition to the existing pair of Naval Strike missile 4-cell boxes) and you have a somewhat serviceable light escort. If you forward deploy the vessels that should also minimize the miles on that shaky drive train. Id also look at giving them an off the shelf long range drone like the Bell-247 that can give them long range intelligence/strike capabilities that might add substantially to their usefulness and flexibility. If the off the shelf long range drones can also perform ASW functions effectively--maybe thats a way the vessels can at least make some contribution in an area of weakness you've mentioned before.
My sense is we are stuck with these as a significant component of the navy for a while---so we need to figure out a way to get something out of them. We've had some crappy ships before---you use what you have. Its going to be a while before we can build our way out of this error so we need to figure out a way to make the best of these hulls for a decade or more.

The engine issue is what precludes them from replacing PC's or Fast Missile boat you suggest Coog. You are probably talking about a $100M to redo the drive train on every LCS.

Suppose $100MM per ship is the cost to fix the engines. Would the USCG take 35 cutters that their cost was $100MM each for the engine fix? I think they would. Rather than try to make it fit Navy needs, I'd rather build the 80 or so ASW frigates that I proposed, and for each two ASW frigates, turn one LCS over to the USCG. Do that, hang on to the Ticos and Burkes for AAW until their full service lives (another 10 years or so), come up with a true cruiser to replace the Ticos by then, and build the FFG(X)s more to a FREMM GP standard than the baby Burkes that we seem to be going for. By 2050, we could have 20 true cruisers, 40 legacy Burkes still in service, 60 FREMM GPs, and 80 ASW frigates. I think that would form a very competent surface escort force.

I actually like your idea. I guess my concern is the next 10-20 years. Regardless of what the long term answer is---we have a gap to fill now. The mistake has been made and its effects are being felt right now and for at least the next 10-15 years. How do we cover the next 10-15 years? Thats why I lean toward some sort of "patch" for the LCS program so they can contribute in some capacity (a stop-gap measure so to speak) until enough more effective vessels come on line.