The United States Navy's "tin cans"

Blue Jay

Member
First of all, I've only registered a few hours ago and this is my second post and first thread and I am SO excited to become a part of a nice, mature group of people who know what they're talking about. I'm an amateur military enthusiast who's still in high school who wants to get into military journalism. I can hold my own when it comes to knowledge of military matters, but there's so much I don't know and I'm always willing to learn! Anyways, onto the topic:

It seems to me that the US Navy is lacking in small cheap warships to act as escorts and low-risk assets. (By "low-risk" I actually mean expendable, but I dislike that term since it implies that they have no value, which is not the case.)

Obviously the main capital ships of the USN are its aircraft carriers. These bird farms need tin cans to escort and protect them from a variety of threats. Currently, this role is filled out by the capable Arleigh-Burke class guided missile destroyer. It seems to me though, that the Arleigh-Burke class of DDGs are really big, really expensive tin cans. Steel bathtubs.

Each Arleigh-Burke class destroyer costs around 1.8 billion USD and displaces 9,600 long tons. Compare to the Royal Navy's armored cruiser HMS Essex launched in 1901 which has a displacement of 9,800 long tons. I'm quoting Wikipedia so the accuracy of these stats isn't concrete but you get my point. Steel bathtubs. These babies are jacks-of-all-trades and very good at what they do, especially air defense with the Aegis System. They're also very big for their class. They seem very well suited for the inner screen work of a battle group that's tasked with the heavy duty air defense.

However, it seems that the USN doesn't have an appropriate warship for use in the outer battle screen and pickets. In other words, the USN doesn't have a real tin can escort that can be a little less valuable and more expendable than the expensive Burkes.

The Aegis ships are awfully nice and all, but doesn't the USN need a ship that's less capable, less expensive, and more numerous that can give naval commanders a low-risk asset? Such a ship would be nice especially if it emphasized Anti-Submarine Warfare. They would be useful in littoral areas.

I am aware of the existence of the Littoral Combat Ship, but I don't think these ships are capable or meant to perform the role I'm describing right now. Tell me if I'm wrong though.
 

Ranger25

Active Member
Staff member
First of all, I've only registered a few hours ago and this is my second post and first thread and I am SO excited to become a part of a nice, mature group of people who know what they're talking about. I'm an amateur military enthusiast who's still in high school who wants to get into military journalism. I can hold my own when it comes to knowledge of military matters, but there's so much I don't know and I'm always willing to learn! Anyways, onto the topic:

It seems to me that the US Navy is lacking in small cheap warships to act as escorts and low-risk assets. (By "low-risk" I actually mean expendable, but I dislike that term since it implies that they have no value, which is not the case.)

Obviously the main capital ships of the USN are its aircraft carriers. These bird farms need tin cans to escort and protect them from a variety of threats. Currently, this role is filled out by the capable Arleigh-Burke class guided missile destroyer. It seems to me though, that the Arleigh-Burke class of DDGs are really big, really expensive tin cans. Steel bathtubs.

Each Arleigh-Burke class destroyer costs around 1.8 billion USD and displaces 9,600 long tons. Compare to the Royal Navy's armored cruiser HMS Essex launched in 1901 which has a displacement of 9,800 long tons. I'm quoting Wikipedia so the accuracy of these stats isn't concrete but you get my point. Steel bathtubs. These babies are jacks-of-all-trades and very good at what they do, especially air defense with the Aegis System. They're also very big for their class. They seem very well suited for the inner screen work of a battle group that's tasked with the heavy duty air defense.

However, it seems that the USN doesn't have an appropriate warship for use in the outer battle screen and pickets. In other words, the USN doesn't have a real tin can escort that can be a little less valuable and more expendable than the expensive Burkes.

The Aegis ships are awfully nice and all, but doesn't the USN need a ship that's less capable, less expensive, and more numerous that can give naval commanders a low-risk asset? Such a ship would be nice especially if it emphasized Anti-Submarine Warfare. They would be useful in littoral areas.

I am aware of the existence of the Littoral Combat Ship, but I don't think these ships are capable or meant to perform the role I'm describing right now. Tell me if I'm wrong though.


I think the LCS soon to be SSC will have a primary emphasis on ASW. The SSC especially with the new Towed array and it's SH 60 will be an effective ASW platform. Still lacks VLS and is limited in Anti Air behind some defensive capabilities. The addition of the Over the horizon ASM will help

As far as Pickets, the CAG provides long range surveillance with the E2, and CAPs for the strike group. There's also a SSN lurking with the group as well.
 

Blue Jay

Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #3
Aha. Thanks for mentioning the SSC.

I think that it is safe to say that the LCS isn't really capable of sustained operations and is lacking in many respects to survive in a hostile environment next to the larger surface combatants of the navy. That seems to be the reason for the development of the SSC.

So the navy does need a real tin can, and it knows it needs one, and it's developing one, it just doesn't have one yet.
 

bdique

Member
Aha. Thanks for mentioning the SSC.

I think that it is safe to say that the LCS isn't really capable of sustained operations and is lacking in many respects to survive in a hostile environment next to the larger surface combatants of the navy. That seems to be the reason for the development of the SSC.

So the navy does need a real tin can, and it knows it needs one, and it's developing one, it just doesn't have one yet.
I think the ships you are thinking of are frigates. From my (admittedly limited) understanding of the USN, if the fight is in the open ocean, 'picket ships' may not be necessary since the sensors on the DDGs, CGs, SSNs, the CVN and embarked aircraft can cover quite a wide area. Even if the fleet is called to strike land targets, the long range of the TLAMs mean that the DDGs/CGs should still far away enough to effectively be in 'open sea'.

Closer to shore, I guess that's where the LCS comes into the picture. There's also the possibility of working with frigates of regional/ally navies i.e. screening for amphib ops, so that might cover some organic capability shortfall.
 

Blue Jay

Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #5
I think the ships you are thinking of are frigates. From my (admittedly limited) understanding of the USN, if the fight is in the open ocean, 'picket ships' may not be necessary since the sensors on the DDGs, CGs, SSNs, the CVN and embarked aircraft can cover quite a wide area. Even if the fleet is called to strike land targets, the long range of the TLAMs mean that the DDGs/CGs should still far away enough to effectively be in 'open sea'.

Closer to shore, I guess that's where the LCS comes into the picture. There's also the possibility of working with frigates of regional/ally navies i.e. screening for amphib ops, so that might cover some organic capability shortfall.
I'm actually pretty sure an outer layer of air patrols and picket ships is necessary in modern open ocean operations. If a threat gets detected by the Aegis ships close to the carrier, it may already be too close for comfort. An outer screen gives you that extra tripwire, sometimes a wall or a filter to provide additional security.
 

RobWilliams

Super Moderator
Staff member
I think the ships you are thinking of are frigates. From my (admittedly limited) understanding of the USN, if the fight is in the open ocean, 'picket ships' may not be necessary since the sensors on the DDGs, CGs, SSNs, the CVN and embarked aircraft can cover quite a wide area. Even if the fleet is called to strike land targets, the long range of the TLAMs mean that the DDGs/CGs should still far away enough to effectively be in 'open sea'.
^^^ this. Plus for land strike you've got SHornets with AAR support with the bounty of lovely stand off weapons they can carry.

The US blue water fleet does not need a new surface combatant IMO. The current fleet can do anything they like in blue water and that's not going to change.

But then again, that's not the theatre the LCS/SSC is designed to operate in is it.
 

bdique

Member
I'm actually pretty sure an outer layer of air patrols and picket ships is necessary in modern open ocean operations. If a threat gets detected by the Aegis ships close to the carrier, it may already be too close for comfort. An outer screen gives you that extra tripwire, sometimes a wall or a filter to provide additional security.
Always good to have more, I agree, but at what cost? Resources i.e. cash, manpower are not infinite, even for a navy as large as the USN. There has to be a balance.

And if you're talking about capability redundancy i.e. an extra set of eyes, ears, and tripwires, the CSG already has that in terms of operating multiple ships of the same class. The embarked air wing can also fulfil that function.

^^^ this. Plus for land strike you've got SHornets with AAR support with the bounty of lovely stand off weapons they can carry.

The US blue water fleet does not need a new surface combatant IMO. The current fleet can do anything they like in blue water and that's not going to change.

But then again, that's not the theatre the LCS/SSC is designed to operate in is it.
That's why a CSG appearing off the coast of a hostile nation will make people do a lot of rethinking. And imagine a CSG appearing off the coast of a nation that's not too far from where the LCS is already forward-deployed in...
 

My2Cents

Active Member
So the navy does need a real tin can, and it knows it needs one, and it's developing one, it just doesn't have one yet.
The question is what are the required capabilities and the resulting vessel?

Most of the replies seem to imagine something like a Burke only with a much smaller VLS. Once you throw in development costs the savings just aren't there, it would be cheaper to build more Burke class vessels for the role.
 

Blue Jay

Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #9
The question is what are the required capabilities and the resulting vessel?

Most of the replies seem to imagine something like a Burke only with a much smaller VLS. Once you throw in development costs the savings just aren't there, it would be cheaper to build more Burke class vessels for the role.
The thing is though, if you take the time and money to make this a long-term investment, you'll end up with an escort vessel you can use well into the future. Burkes might be cheaper to build, but what if USN goes to war and starts losing them to low-cost but cost effective threats? It wouldn't be worth an entire billion dollar aegis destroyer for some of these possible mission profiles, whereas creating a low-cost frigate might pay off in the future. Right?

So I'm imagining something with a very small VLS if it has one at all, mostly for some air defense capabilities. 12-16 cell VLS. No aegis since the fleet has the Burkes. The highest priority for one of these imho is good anti-submarine warfare capability with some torpedoes and a helo. If the ship's mission package is somewhat modular, maybe the torpedoes could be switched out for harpoons? Just an idea. I imagine some sort of gun is needed as well. A dual-role one like the 5-inch seems optimal, but I'm not an expert on naval guns so...

I think the key thing would be to make it as cheap as possible while making sure it has good capabilities in just one role. I think the most important role for these is ASW but AAW is also very important for an escort in the modern era. Maybe making the ship modular to be able to be modified for either mission, but not if it makes too many compromises. Ships are different from jets or AFVs, though, so I think having multiple variants off of a common hull would be more forgiving than an air or ground vehicle.
 

ASSAIL

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
The question is what are the required capabilities and the resulting vessel?
The further question is; what extra capability is required that is not already filled by other platforms(air, surface and sub-surface).
If that can't be defined, the requirement is superfluous.
 
Last edited:

Ranger25

Active Member
Staff member
The thing is though, if you take the time and money to make this a long-term investment, you'll end up with an escort vessel you can use well into the future. Burkes might be cheaper to build, but what if USN goes to war and starts losing them to low-cost but cost effective threats? It wouldn't be worth an entire billion dollar aegis destroyer for some of these possible mission profiles, whereas creating a low-cost frigate might pay off in the future. Right?

So I'm imagining something with a very small VLS if it has one at all, mostly for some air defense capabilities. 12-16 cell VLS. No aegis since the fleet has the Burkes. The highest priority for one of these imho is good anti-submarine warfare capability with some torpedoes and a helo. If the ship's mission package is somewhat modular, maybe the torpedoes could be switched out for harpoons? Just an idea. I imagine some sort of gun is needed as well. A dual-role one like the 5-inch seems optimal, but I'm not an expert on naval guns so...

I think the key thing would be to make it as cheap as possible while making sure it has good capabilities in just one role. I think the most important role for these is ASW but AAW is also very important for an escort in the modern era. Maybe making the ship modular to be able to be modified for either mission, but not if it makes too many compromises. Ships are different from jets or AFVs, though, so I think having multiple variants off of a common hull would be more forgiving than an air or ground vehicle.

Sounds a lot like the LCS/SSC

Up Gunned LCS Hulls Picked for Navy’s Next Small Surface Combatant - USNI News
 

My2Cents

Active Member
The thing is though, if you take the time and money to make this a long-term investment, you'll end up with an escort vessel you can use well into the future. Burkes might be cheaper to build, but what if USN goes to war and starts losing them to low-cost but cost effective threats? It wouldn't be worth an entire billion dollar aegis destroyer for some of these possible mission profiles, whereas creating a low-cost frigate might pay off in the future. Right?
Single role vessels tend to be to over optimized for extended lifespans and production when the threat keep changing. And you will always lose vessels to lower cost threats if you are fighting in the other guy’s backyard. The question is whether or not those low-cost but cost effective threats can be a suitable replacement for your escort role.
I think the key thing would be to make it as cheap as possible while making sure it has good capabilities in just one role. I think the most important role for these is ASW but AAW is also very important for an escort in the modern era. Maybe making the ship modular to be able to be modified for either mission, but not if it makes too many compromises. Ships are different from jets or AFVs, though, so I think having multiple variants off of a common hull would be more forgiving than an air or ground vehicle.
Your problem is that ASW and AAA are missions with totally different architectural and electronic requirements. A short VLS for ESSM only in the AAM capability can’t handle ASROC and you can’t swap it for torpedoes for ASW capability, while the torpedo tubes and ASW helicopter(s) can’t be swapped for AAA capability. Likewise the AAA sensors and electronics have to have the ship pretty much built around them, and the rest of the ship built around the helicopter hanger. Small vessels that are truly multipurpose just are not doable any more.
So I'm imagining something with a very small VLS if it has one at all, mostly for some air defense capabilities. 12-16 cell VLS. No aegis since the fleet has the Burkes. The highest priority for one of these imho is good anti-submarine warfare capability with some torpedoes and a helo. If the ship's mission package is somewhat modular, maybe the torpedoes could be switched out for harpoons? Just an idea. I imagine some sort of gun is needed as well. A dual-role one like the 5-inch seems optimal, but I'm not an expert on naval guns so...
So;
  • 8 or 16 cell VLS of ESSM for AAA with Spy-1F or K
  • 2x4 Harpoon
  • 2 Helicopters w/hanger + variable depth sonar + ASW torpedoes
  • 76mm OTO Melara Super Rapid cannon (5” is not really dual role for ASM work), + 2 to 4 smaller (30mm?) cannons in remote mounts. Plus RAM.
  • Speed 32 knots to keep up with the rest of the fleet.
  • Modular space for commandoes, etc.
  • And the real killer -- maximum draft of 4m for inshore work, not 6m+ for blue water.
Anything out there that looks close?

I would guesstimate your vessel is around 5000 tons and $1.2 billion + development costs.
 
Last edited:

Blue Jay

Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #13
Okay. Thanks for all you're amazing replies guys. It seems like the USN would do well to continue with its LCS/SSC then? Since this thread is about "The USN's tin cans", and since the LCS/SSC seems to be the navy's new generation of tin cans, what are your thoughts on both the Freedom and Independence class of LCS and whatever you know of the SSC?
 

barney41

Member
Much of the media focus has been on the upgunning of LCS/SSC which is sexy. The survivability issue also merits discussion.


The LCS and SSC Survivability Dilemma

THE LCS AND SSC SURVIVABILITY DILEMMA
Chief Pentagon Weapon Tester Dr. Michael Gilmore remains fundamentally dissatisfied with the survivability of the Navy’s littoral combatant ship (LCS) and its upgraded follow-on, the small surface combatant (SSC). In an emailed statement described in a January 8th Bloomberg article, Dr. Gilmore stated, “Notwithstanding reductions to its susceptibility” compared with the design of the first 32 ships, “the minor modifications to the LCS will not yield a ship that is significantly more survivable.” It remains to be seen, however, how the Navy can improve the other legs of the “survivability triangle” on a hull of 3000 tons displacement and less than 425 feet in length. Small ships have been historically unsurvivable. Modern small warships are not in any way the equivalent of the World War 2 predecessors. Every warship is a compromise in armament, endurance, speed, and survivability. This is especially true of the LCS, as its modular operational profile demands absolute adherence to weight limitations...

Every warship is a compromise of capabilities and limitations on a hull of a given size. The Navy has determined that the LCS and eventually the SSC will fulfill very specific missions on the hull size it selected during initial LCS design. Dr. Gilmore’s survivability demands on the present LCS hull are respectfully unrealistic. A larger vessel such as the Spanish Navy’s Alvaro de Bazan class frigate or its Norwegian or Australian cousins may be able to support increased survivability, but such a vessel would be inherently more expensive. A traditional frigate is also not what the Navy desired when it sought a replacement for the aging mine countermeasures and patrol ships, as well as the retiring Perry class whose dated missile capabilities were removed starting in 2003. LCS and SSC are simply not as survivable, as the Navy currently defines this term, as larger combatants due to physical constraints, smaller crew size, and fewer installed active and passive defense systems. It is unreasonable to demand that they meet a higher standard on the current hull.
More at the link.
 

My2Cents

Active Member
Okay. Thanks for all you're amazing replies guys. It seems like the USN would do well to continue with its LCS/SSC then? Since this thread is about "The USN's tin cans", and since the LCS/SSC seems to be the navy's new generation of tin cans, what are your thoughts on both the Freedom and Independence class of LCS and whatever you know of the SSC?
Any opinions will depend on what the particular responder feels are the roles that the LCS/SSC is/’should have been’ designed to perform.
 

Ranger25

Active Member
Staff member
Okay. Thanks for all you're amazing replies guys. It seems like the USN would do well to continue with its LCS/SSC then? Since this thread is about "The USN's tin cans", and since the LCS/SSC seems to be the navy's new generation of tin cans, what are your thoughts on both the Freedom and Independence class of LCS and whatever you know of the SSC?


I for one am disappointed there on no MK 41 VLS on the proposed SSC. The VLS will add significant capability. My understanding it may be a weight issue. I keep comparing the hull to similarly tonnage hulls and still think it's bpvery lightly armed by comparison.

Perhaps a 30 MJ rail gun may be added down the road.
 

FormerDirtDart

Well-Known Member
I for one am disappointed there on no MK 41 VLS on the proposed SSC. The VLS will add significant capability. My understanding it may be a weight issue. I keep comparing the hull to similarly tonnage hulls and still think it's bpvery lightly armed by comparison.

Perhaps a 30 MJ rail gun may be added down the road.
The US Navy has not yet figured out how to wedge a rail gun into a ship the size of the Zumwalt-class destroyer, let alone how to meet the massive power requirements of the weapon.

Yet, you foresee it as a proper armament on a vessel this thread equates to a "tin can"?

If I was a medical practitioner, I would prescribe you at least one month away from the internet, in an oxygen rich environment.

3-star: 'Lot of work' before railgun arrives in fleet
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
Any opinions will depend on what the particular responder feels are the roles that the LCS/SSC is/’should have been’ designed to perform.
Agreed. I still wonder about the split buy award. IMO, the trimaran design satisfied the shallow and fast requirement. The Freedom class should have been cancelled in favour of a modern multi-role frigate. All sorts of excellent foreign designs that could have been modified for USN requirements.
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
The US Navy has not yet figured out how to wedge a rail gun into a ship the size of the Zumwalt-class destroyer, let alone how to meet the massive power requirements of the weapon.

Yet, you foresee it as a proper armament on a vessel this thread equates to a "tin can"?

If I was a medical practitioner, I would prescribe you at least one month away from the internet, in an oxygen rich environment.

3-star: 'Lot of work' before railgun arrives in fleet
Yep, the power requirements remain a huge issue. One answer is more nuclear power but as others have told me, the nuclear option is really only viable for well protected CVNs and submarines. At the moment, with cheap oil, bigger boats with extra gas turbines addresses this power issue.
 

My2Cents

Active Member
I for one am disappointed there on no MK 41 VLS on the proposed SSC. The VLS will add significant capability. My understanding it may be a weight issue. I keep comparing the hull to similarly tonnage hulls and still think it's bpvery lightly armed by comparison.
It is a volume and deck area problem as well, a Mk 41 is very large and requires a lot of clearance because of the exhaust. Then you have the radar systems and other electronics, water, etc to support it, which also require power it may not have. It is unlikely that you could install it without stretching hull by quite a bit.

You might be able be able to install a Mk 56 VLS for ESSM missiles, it requires considerably less space and support. http://www.alternatewars.com/BBOW/Weapons/Mk56_VLS.pdf

The reason that the LCS looks/is so under armed in the conventional sense is that it has hanger space for 2 (two) helicopters (more likely 1 helicopter + UAVs). Between the hanger and landing pad they occupy over half the deck area in such small ships. The ships you are comparing the LCS designs to have at most 1 helicopter, and many lack hangers for them.
 
Top