Go Back   Defense Technology & Military Forum > Global Defense & Military > Navy & Maritime
Forgot Password? Join Us! Its's free!

Defense News
Land, Air & Naval Forces






Military Photos
Latest Military Pictures

LMV-6.jpg

LMV-4.jpg

LMV-3.jpg

LMV-2.jpg
Defense Reports
Aerospace & Defence







Recent Photos - DefenceTalk Military Gallery





US Navy News and updates

This is a discussion on US Navy News and updates within the Navy & Maritime forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; Originally Posted by StingrayOZ Then again Australia is a small navy and its smaller combat ship is shaping up as: ...


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rating: Thread Rating: 7 votes, 3.86 average.
Old August 24th, 2011   #241
Defense Enthusiast
Corporal
No Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Guangzhou, PRC
Posts: 168
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by StingrayOZ View Post
Then again Australia is a small navy and its smaller combat ship is shaping up as:

8x 7,000t. Around 48 VLS cells, plus 8 harpoon with ground attack, Quad packed ESSM, Sm2, SM6, Tlam, phalax, PAC3 ABM, non aegis radar but with ahighly capable APAR with mini-aegis levels of combat management/remote firing, 5" gun, minityphoons around deck, helo. Then build 20 OCV's that are really just big patrol boats (2000t) but with helo, davits for RHIB's and a 20mm typhoon and thats it.

More like a mini burke than a type 26. It depends on the budget and what you want to do. I think a ship like the one above would be seen as stepping on burkes toes too much.

Australia, UK and NZ are talking about the options and systems. However each country has its own needs and wants.
If Oz and NZ want all of that and the tonnage creeps north towards 7000T, then why not simply buy the Burkes and get it over with? Off topic, sorry but the question begged to be asked.
exported_kiwi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 27th, 2011   #242
Defense Enthusiast
Major
harryriedl's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: london
Posts: 995
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by exported_kiwi View Post
If Oz and NZ want all of that and the tonnage creeps north towards 7000T, then why not simply buy the Burkes and get it over with? Off topic, sorry but the question begged to be asked.
crewing Burkes are very manpower heavy compared with other similar vessels both due to age of desgine and the US Navy generally larger crew requirements compared with other navies.
________________
Colin McRae 1961-2007 true champion
Unofficial Royal navy cheering section
harryriedl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 28th, 2011   #243
Senior Member
Brigadier General
No Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Sydney
Posts: 1,702
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by exported_kiwi View Post
If Oz and NZ want all of that and the tonnage creeps north towards 7000T, then why not simply buy the Burkes and get it over with? Off topic, sorry but the question begged to be asked.
* Burkes are generally more man power intensive. You can design this out, but then you are basically redesigning the ship, hence a new class, hence increased cost and risk. Problems and development costs have to be carried by someone. The RAN is not the USN, and the burke is a big navy ship.
* The burkes I believe are too big to build in Australian shipyards (just). 8,000t I think is our limit full load..
* the F-100 is an already proven design in the water, which aligns fairly closely to what we want. Cost and risk are known. It is already a mini burke (or more appriproiately a burke for a small navy). Some modern designs allow enhancement, hull, radar sits slightly higher than a burke.

Besides this is our frigate. The frigate is most likely going to sit on the same 7,000t hull as the AWD, with very simular weapon systems, but is most likely going to feature a non aegis, but aegis compatable radar and combat system. You get a hell of a punch, for less outlay than a burke (with a lot more local content and build).

So far NZ has not express any public wish to join the Australian superpowerful frigate program.

I think the Australian off shore combat vessel (OCV) is something the UK, US and Au could work together. Most likely 2,000t, with basically a 25mm gun up front (and thats it). But large enough to handle small numbers of troops, rescue a sinking boat of refugees, anti piracy, helos, UUV's, rotary UAV's, ASW, survey etc. Space allocated for Phalanx or something but rarely fitted with them. Something big enough to travel across blue water, but focused on doing its job (which is not air defence or fleet defence).

Essentially a LCS without the high speed requirement made using real today LC OTS tech. This would be a ship I think the US, AU and UK could agree on most of the systems (ie non combat) and design.
StingrayOZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 29th, 2011   #244
Super Moderator
Brigadier General
AegisFC's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Virginia
Posts: 1,847
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by harryriedl View Post
crewing Burkes are very manpower heavy compared with other similar vessels both due to age of desgine and the US Navy generally larger crew requirements compared with other navies.
USN crewing and watch standing methods have more to do with it than anything else. For example the USN uses dedicated damage control technicians who specialize in firefighting, training the rest of the crew in firefighting and other DC and maintaining all the DC equipment, most other navies DC is a secondary duty.
All the ships also have full admin departments though that was being moved ashore and that reduced the crew by about 10 or so to the detriment to the DC teams those admin geeks were a part of since when you get down to it proper DC is a manpower intensive event.
For the last decade or so the USN was experimenting with various methods to reduce manning and all it managed to do is piss off the squids, lead to retention problems, ship material readiness problems and in general is regarded as an unmitigated disaster by anyone without a star on their uniform.
________________
"The beatings will continue until morale improves."
Forum rules, read them!
AegisFC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 30th, 2011   #245
Defense Enthusiast
Lieutenant
No Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: USA,TN
Posts: 553
Threads:
"For the last decade or so the USN was experimenting with various methods to reduce manning and all it managed to do is piss off the squids, lead to retention problems, ship material readiness problems and in general is regarded as an unmitigated disaster by anyone without a star on their uniform."

That might be the understatment of the century.

The bad part is ships like the LCS, DDG-1000, etc........ships built in the timeframe this became doctrine are designed to be built and operated for "optimal manning". Hence LCS doesnt have enough room and is proving more manpower intensive even without here mission moduals.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AegisFC View Post
USN crewing and watch standing methods have more to do with it than anything else. For example the USN uses dedicated damage control technicians who specialize in firefighting, training the rest of the crew in firefighting and other DC and maintaining all the DC equipment, most other navies DC is a secondary duty.
All the ships also have full admin departments though that was being moved ashore and that reduced the crew by about 10 or so to the detriment to the DC teams those admin geeks were a part of since when you get down to it proper DC is a manpower intensive event.
For the last decade or so the USN was experimenting with various methods to reduce manning and all it managed to do is piss off the squids, lead to retention problems, ship material readiness problems and in general is regarded as an unmitigated disaster by anyone without a star on their uniform.
Belesari is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 30th, 2011   #246
Defense Enthusiast
Major
harryriedl's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: london
Posts: 995
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by AegisFC View Post
USN crewing and watch standing methods have more to do with it than anything else. For example the USN uses dedicated damage control technicians who specialize in firefighting, training the rest of the crew in firefighting and other DC and maintaining all the DC equipment, most other navies DC is a secondary duty.
All the ships also have full admin departments though that was being moved ashore and that reduced the crew by about 10 or so to the detriment to the DC teams those admin geeks were a part of since when you get down to it proper DC is a manpower intensive event.
For the last decade or so the USN was experimenting with various methods to reduce manning and all it managed to do is piss off the squids, lead to retention problems, ship material readiness problems and in general is regarded as an unmitigated disaster by anyone without a star on their uniform.
I have seen the issues they have had the LCS with lean crewing. How to other Euro and NATO forces with much less crews manage without the big USN crews because they have similar at sea time (is the USN much harder on its ships).

how much do dedicated DC crews add to the ships complement, also dose that mean the rest of the crew have less training due a dedicated crew

a little OT I know but curious
________________
Colin McRae 1961-2007 true champion
Unofficial Royal navy cheering section
harryriedl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 31st, 2011   #247
Defense Enthusiast
Lieutenant
No Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: USA,TN
Posts: 553
Threads:
Part of it is just the way the ships are built and operated. Designed differently longer ranges etc. Where say the Nimitz carriers are designed to be able to handle alot of missions day in and day out as they have been for a long time another carrier like the De Gaulle isnt really built for it. So where the US has the larger ship crews to perform the maintenance the De Gaulle would in port.

European fleets dont really deploy like we do. Its one reason we tend to have different design/manning/etc for ships.

Our way is more expensive but nessesary for us.

LCS is a cluster. Plain and simple.

The idea morphed from one of:

small cheap and ultimatly expendable ships to:

Vessels the size of ww1 battleships that could perform litteraly EVERYTHING horribly (depending on the sea state atm then maybe not at all). While being undercrewed. Meanwhile the moduals aren't ready even when they work. And over all cost...I believe its now 750mil per vessel and around a hundred or so per modual (which NO ONE has any trust in the moduals being in the right place and the whole system is dependent upon ALWAYS know When, where m why, and how every possible battle could happen) Our record in knowing these things is poor to say the least.

What we need............i know its heresy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDMS_Absalon_(L16)


Try to control yourselves...

Quote:
Originally Posted by harryriedl View Post
I have seen the issues they have had the LCS with lean crewing. How to other Euro and NATO forces with much less crews manage without the big USN crews because they have similar at sea time (is the USN much harder on its ships).

how much do dedicated DC crews add to the ships complement, also dose that mean the rest of the crew have less training due a dedicated crew

a little OT I know but curious
Belesari is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 31st, 2011   #248
Super Moderator
Brigadier General
AegisFC's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Virginia
Posts: 1,847
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by harryriedl View Post
how much do dedicated DC crews add to the ships complement, also dose that mean the rest of the crew have less training due a dedicated crew
On a Burke usually between 10-15 people are in the DC division.
The entire crew gets DC training, in boot camp and when they get to the ship through drills and duty day lectures by the DC guys or a squid can be sent to a more realistic DC schools (I've been sent to DC training twice and it was a blast, you fight real fires in a realistic yet controlled setting and maybe play around with pipe patching or flooding control, depending on how long the class is).
________________
"The beatings will continue until morale improves."
Forum rules, read them!
AegisFC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 31st, 2011   #249
Defense Professional / Analyst
Captain
Systems Adict's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 751
Threads:
I've just read this article...

http://www.dodbuzz.com/2011/08/31/do...-libyan-scuds/

Based on a link I found here...

CDR Salamander

Which has additional comment, here...

“Unique Capabilities” in the Libyan conflict | USNI Blog


...Does anyone have an opinion / wish to comment, or is this being covered elsewhere, such as in the Missiles thread ??


SA
Systems Adict is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 1st, 2011   #250
Super Moderator
Brigadier General
AegisFC's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Virginia
Posts: 1,847
Threads:
The DoD is denying any such thing happened.

http://www.dodbuzz.com/2011/08/31/do...-libyan-scuds/

Though I'm wondering how come it was reported in the first place.
________________
"The beatings will continue until morale improves."
Forum rules, read them!
AegisFC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 1st, 2011   #251
Defense Professional / Analyst
Captain
Systems Adict's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 751
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by AegisFC View Post
The DoD is denying any such thing happened.

http://www.dodbuzz.com/2011/08/31/do...-libyan-scuds/

Though I'm wondering how come it was reported in the first place.

The good old British story tellers are behind this one.....

Libyan rebels advance on Gaddafi's home town | World news | The Guardian

I never tend to take anything these guys say as being true, even though they may be close to the money on a few things.....

SA
Systems Adict is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 1st, 2011   #252
Banned Member
Master Sergeant
No Avatar
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 396
Threads:
Quick question: is it 1 TLAM per Cell in a Mk 41 VLS?

Just read that an SSGN can carry 22 x 7 = 154 TLAMs. That's a LOT of Tomahawks. Considering a Burke or Tico would carry more SM-2/3s vs TLAMs, a lone SSGN could do more damage inland than maybe 4 Burkes/Ticos. Simply amazing.
fretburner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 2nd, 2011   #253
Senior Member
Brigadier General
No Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Sydney
Posts: 1,702
Threads:
Quote:
Quick question: is it 1 TLAM per Cell in a Mk 41 VLS?
Yes, 1 strike length cell.

The SSGN's have huge ICBM tubes. Hence can multipack tlams.

A SSBN with a full nuke load could wipe out an entire continent, so the TLAM power while huge is nothing in comparison.
StingrayOZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 2nd, 2011   #254
Banned Member
Master Sergeant
No Avatar
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 396
Threads:
^ Yes. I saw that feature in Discover Channel where they say an Ohio-Class Sub has more firepower than ALL the bombs delivered in WW2. Scary.
fretburner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 2nd, 2011   #255
Defense Enthusiast
Corporal
No Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 122
Threads:
I wonder if the USN has plans to convert additional SSBNs to SSGN configuration? Those things can come in very handy unloading massive devastation plus the ability to deploy Seals.
wormhole is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:29 AM.