She was a Sumner Class DD. Eight Battle Stars over three wars ... but let's go back to the Korean War ... and remind ourselves of what is still out there ... waiting ... and what a well made ship, a well led crew, and a little luck can get you.About 1230I on the 30th, an urgent dispatch directed the MANSFIELD and SWENSON to proceed at best speed possible to Lat 38°45'N, Long 128°15'E to assist a B-26 aircraft reported down at that point. The distance was about 60 miles north of the MANSFIELD. At 1445I the ship went to General Quarters and set Material Condition Able, executing this routine exercise with more thatn usual vigor upon hearing from the SAR plane on the scene that small arms fire had been received from the beach. At 1450I the ship reported on the scene and commenced searching. At 1500I, with the L.K. SWENSON lying to outside the 50 fathom curve, to cover our approach, the entry to Choson Ko begun. The approach was made at slow speed, heading so that the reported position of the plane wreckage would be on the starboard bow. A second plane was now on the scene, a B-178 with a rescue boat. The SAR plane, when requested to make another pass over the wreckage it had reported approximately 500 yards east of Toi To Island, again drew machine gun fire which could clearly be heard on the ship.Please, read more at the links.The ship had stopped engines at 1535I, and at 1536I both engines were backed to bring the way off, at a point 2,200 yards from the reported wreckage, in 12 fathoms of water. Some objects were now visible in the cove near the beach; a raft of logs about 3,000 yards to port, some net buoys about 3,000 yards ahead. At 1539I a sonar contact was identified as shoal, Chu Rai.
No sign of the suspected wreckage was seen by the many lookouts and officers on the bridge of the MANSFIELD. Neither was anything seen in the water near the ship. The mine lookout, recently stationed in the eyes of the ship with rifle and binoculars, reporting nothing.
After backing clear to the vicinity of the L.K. SWENSON, a distance of four miles, engines were stopped and an account made of the casualties and damage. Radio reports were sent to cognizant commanders. Early analysis of the damage accurately established the water tight bulkhead forward at frame 48. This bulkhead was shored while wounded were carried to the battle dressing station in the wardroom. the Commanding Officer called repeatedly for an estimate of casualties particularly dead and missing. Finally an all hands muster on abandon ship parade confirmed the previous on-battle-station muster of NONE missing or dead. After this cheerful report was passed to all hands, the work of treating the twenty-eight wounded, of building shores, and of pumping tanks proceeded with greater expedition. Three weeks after the explosion the fact that not a man was lost of even crippled remains a miracle.
Check out this Fullbore timeline. Littoral warfare and fighting hurt; yea, we've got that.
Of course, she is a Bath Iron Works ship - that should tell you a lot - but let's look at the stats.
Now the Little Crappy Ship.
I am glad that the LCS is fast - because it better run away fast from the cutting edge of 1940-60s technology. That's ok though. It will run out of fuel fast enough that in our time-warp sea battle - the dash would find her and the DD could stand off at a respectful distance and plunk away with its six 5"/38s. It will only take a hit or two.
Oh, we'll even give the LCS a helo. Good luck getting close to MANSFIELD. Those 5"/38s have quite a track record against sub-200 knots targets. That one 57mm might break or jam after awhile - and it can't shoot aft ... that would be bad.
Here is a fun fact; the widdle LCS's 57mm has a max range of 9 mn - about 1,000 yds more than the standard load for the 5"/38. At that range - it takes a round about a minute to reach the target. Both ships are very maneuverable. On top of that - LCS cannot fire from the stern and would have to turn and close the MANSFIELD. Optically guided, ahem, or even if it was fully online - you will not get hits at max range.
In a gun battle - numbers matter. The number of turrets you have gives you redundency in case of mechanical failure or battle damage. It also gives you some wiggle room on your fire control solution as two ships move a lot. It is easier to kill a rabbit with a shotgun than a rifle when it is running.
The closer you get, the more accurate your fire as the round spends less time in the air. You also need a large magazine and multiple magazines. Inaccurate fire means you need to put a lot down range in hope you get a hit. Magazines can have failures just like turrets can.
When you get closer - odds are you will get hit too - multiple times. You need to fight when hurt. You need enough crew for DC, and fighting the ship. How many hits could the MANSFIELD take? Yea ... I think we know that.
How many hits from a 5"/38 HE rounds could LCS take? I vote one.
OK shipmate - you can ride the 1971 version of the USS MANSFIELD or you can ride the 2010 version of the LCS. You are 20,000 yards apart and both of you want that nuclear weapon floating adrift on a tramp steamer off of San Diego. ,,,, Wait ... I am changing the rules here for a second. Don't get upset; just pray I don't change them again.
MANSFIELD has a DASH. LCS has a FIRESCOUT - after all - Firescout is so much more transformational than a silly manned helo with those pesky and expensive Sailors on them. I would give LCS something to fight with besides NLOS - but it doesn't exist. Sorry - you're stuck with your 57/30/12.7mm; but at least you're wearing NWU.
OK, pick your ship. Just give me a second to get my long sleeve wash khaki uniform from the attic. Heck ... liberty was better in 1971 anyway.
Now let's talk about the ship for a bit.CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER OF EVENTS30 SEPTEMBER 19501227 Departed area of Point "Easy", Lat 37°56'N, Long 128°54'E, in company with USS LYMAN K. SWENSON DD729 proceeding at 25 knots to a point Lat 38°45'N, Long 128°15;E, to investigate a report of a downed American B-26 in accordance CTG 95.2 instructions.
1239 Established radio communications with SAR plane.
1445 Small arms fire reported on the beach. Manned General Quarters Stations.
1450 Commenced approach to Chosen Ko. USS SWENSON standing by to seaward. MANSFIELD on course 286°T, speed 10 knots.
1500 Commenced entry, on course 205°T.
1504 Slowed to 5 knots.
1508 Increased to 10 knots.
1509 Plane reported possible wreckage 1/4 to 1/2 mile east of small island (Toi To).
1513 Slowed to 5 knots.
1533 SAR plane reported directly over wreckage.
1534 SAR plane reported objects at mouth of inner bay, appeared to be a life preserver and box.
1536 Objects, apparently logs, sighted on port beam 3000 yards.
1538 All engines stopped. Lying to.
1539 Sonar reported contact on port bow, 1200 to 1300 yards. Identified as 4 3/4 fathom shoal (Chu Rai).
1547 Explosion port side forward. All engines back full. Backed clear of minefield, lying to outside 50 fathom curve in vicinity L.K. SWENSON.
1737 All engines ahead 1/3 (3 knots).
1850 Changed speed to 8 knots.
2108 Stopped for transfer of wounded to USS HELENA.
2245 Underway at speed 8 knots as guide of formation.
2346 Changed speed to 10 knots.
Of course, she is a Bath Iron Works ship - that should tell you a lot - but let's look at the stats.Class and type: Allen M. Sumner class destroyer... and yes, I'm going there.
Displacement: 2,200 tons
Length: 376 ft 6 in
Beam: 40 ft
Draft: 15 ft 8 in
Propulsion: 60,000 shp (45 MW); 2 propellers
Speed: 34 knots
Range: 6500 nmi. @ 15 kt
Complement: 336
Armament: 6 × 5 in./38 guns (12 cm),
12 × 40mm AA guns,
11 × 20mm AA guns,
10 × 21 in. torpedo tubes,
6 × depth charge projectors,
2 × depth charge tracks
Now the Little Crappy Ship.
Class and type: Littoral Combat ShipYes, LCS is larger than a WWII-Vietnam era destroyer. Of course, NLOS is vapor-ware. The Army has CANX it. Still not proven on land or at sea.
Displacement: 3,000 metric tons
Length: 378 ft
Beam: 57.4 ft (17.5 m)
Draft: 12.8 ft (3.9 m)
Propulsion: 2 Rolls-Royce MT30 36 MW gas turbines, 2 Colt-Pielstick diesel engines, 4 Rolls-Royce waterjets
Speed: 47 knots
Range: 3,500 nm at 18 knots
Complement: 75-100
Armament:
1x BAE Systems Mk 110 57 mm gun,
2x .50-cal machine guns
21x RIM-116 Rolling Airframe Missile Surface-to-Air Missiles
45 NLOS missiles
I am glad that the LCS is fast - because it better run away fast from the cutting edge of 1940-60s technology. That's ok though. It will run out of fuel fast enough that in our time-warp sea battle - the dash would find her and the DD could stand off at a respectful distance and plunk away with its six 5"/38s. It will only take a hit or two.
Oh, we'll even give the LCS a helo. Good luck getting close to MANSFIELD. Those 5"/38s have quite a track record against sub-200 knots targets. That one 57mm might break or jam after awhile - and it can't shoot aft ... that would be bad.
Here is a fun fact; the widdle LCS's 57mm has a max range of 9 mn - about 1,000 yds more than the standard load for the 5"/38. At that range - it takes a round about a minute to reach the target. Both ships are very maneuverable. On top of that - LCS cannot fire from the stern and would have to turn and close the MANSFIELD. Optically guided, ahem, or even if it was fully online - you will not get hits at max range.
In a gun battle - numbers matter. The number of turrets you have gives you redundency in case of mechanical failure or battle damage. It also gives you some wiggle room on your fire control solution as two ships move a lot. It is easier to kill a rabbit with a shotgun than a rifle when it is running.
The closer you get, the more accurate your fire as the round spends less time in the air. You also need a large magazine and multiple magazines. Inaccurate fire means you need to put a lot down range in hope you get a hit. Magazines can have failures just like turrets can.
When you get closer - odds are you will get hit too - multiple times. You need to fight when hurt. You need enough crew for DC, and fighting the ship. How many hits could the MANSFIELD take? Yea ... I think we know that.
How many hits from a 5"/38 HE rounds could LCS take? I vote one.
OK shipmate - you can ride the 1971 version of the USS MANSFIELD or you can ride the 2010 version of the LCS. You are 20,000 yards apart and both of you want that nuclear weapon floating adrift on a tramp steamer off of San Diego. ,,,, Wait ... I am changing the rules here for a second. Don't get upset; just pray I don't change them again.
MANSFIELD has a DASH. LCS has a FIRESCOUT - after all - Firescout is so much more transformational than a silly manned helo with those pesky and expensive Sailors on them. I would give LCS something to fight with besides NLOS - but it doesn't exist. Sorry - you're stuck with your 57/30/12.7mm; but at least you're wearing NWU.
OK, pick your ship. Just give me a second to get my long sleeve wash khaki uniform from the attic. Heck ... liberty was better in 1971 anyway.
120 comments:
You missed a vital paragraph on an otherwise excellent post:
<span>Suddenly, a high order explosion was soon heard under the bow of the ship. A geyser of water rose up on the port side to the height of the gun director. While many of the watch were temporarily stunned by the detonation, the Commanding Officer backed both engines full. The ship was steered, while backing, through the same water she had entered. The engineering officer promptly left his station at repair central and rushed forward to begin damage control and rescue injured personnel. The bow was clearly observed to be sinking as soon as the explosion subsided.</span>
Another very post. Correct me if I'm wrong but the LCS also uses more aluminum rather than steel in the older ship. From my reading of the Falkland war, it would appear that fire is harder to contain in ships of that construction then in older ones. Does that not further push the advantage to the older design?
I did feel as if I'd missed something. I guessed she had hit a mine. I like the rabbit analogy. I bet the designers of the LCS were't hunters. I'm just sayin'. I also like the dig at NWUs. Nice comparison.
Imagine, if you will, that the exchange takes place at present day....
The Gearing destroyer belongs to the navy of Markstanistan, a lovely country with great bars and wide-open fairways. (The benevolent dictator of the place has an occasional duck-hook problem.)
She is a "FRAM X" which means, to reduce crew size and top weight, the three 5"/38 mounts were replaced by a single Mk 42 mount fore and aft. In place of Mount 52 is a CIWS. The 5"/54 has a range of about 23.5km if memory serves, about 8km greater than the 57mmx70.
Looks like Markstanistan is gonna be a nuclear power after all. My DD gets to the steamer with the nuke, and for good measure sinks LCS well outside of the range at which it can engage.
Yeah. The early Type 21 'Amazon-class' frigates and the auxiliary 'Sir' or 'Roundtable-class' Landing Ships Logistics both had big problems with aluminium in their superstructures - both by battle damage and wear-n-tear. RFA Sir Tristram and Sir Galahad both hit at Bluff Cove didn't quite burn down to their decks but still looked like someone had taken a blowtorch to a plastic model.<span> </span>
The 56 dead amounted to almost a quarter of the entire British losses.
Might I suggest you expand on that theme next week and talk about the Sumner's (including Mansfield), doing the other side of Littoral Warfare (shootin' at people): going up against mines and shore batteries on Wolmi-do to clear the area for the invasion of Inchon (with cruiser back up from 6" and 8" guns that don't exist anymore).
EXACTLY regarding the comparison! WHY CANT WE BUILD EM LIKE WE USED TO!?
Well, to be honest, give the LCS 8 bolt-on harpoon boxes, and replace the gun with 5in auto armed with laser-guided projectiles and Gearing will not know what hit him with helo doing the OTH targetting. But give Gearing the same weapons and it will be even better....
How about this for battle damage?
http://blog.usni.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/savo-battle-damage-reports.pdf
or this?
http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/rep/WDR/index.html
The fact is that the USN is not building ships to take damage like this. If the USN strategy was to simply build such large numbers of ships that the loss of one would be made up for by a fresh ship that might (emphasis on might) be the sign of at least a coherent strategy. However, we aren't even building enough ships to meet current commitments, much less take losses.
The LCS does have one tactical opportunity in this setup. It would play the HMS Glowworm vs. the Sumner playing the Hipper.
First LOL of the morning:
"But at least you're wearing NWU."
Thanks for keeping it real, Sal!
Ya know, Me and Virgil, Ewok, Scott and Clark were discussing this over to my place a couple days ago.
My personal suggestion was a new build using the hull and engineering from the DDG-51's. Replace the VLS system and forward cun mount with an armored turret from an Army self-propelled gun, with a large magazine. Remove the hanger, and in it's place put a pair of box launchers for Harpoon and Standard. Leave enough space for a helo deck for unred, casualty evac, etc. Double the torpedo tubes.
Nice. After regime change, the new CNO might (might) have a little common sense and get back to basics.
The fix the Navy has gotten its self into in the last two decades might be turned around in the next one. It might get back to baseline in the next 3.
But it's not the way to bet.
How come NAVSEA has shut down access to the War Damage Reports in their DCFP Museum website
My guess is because: THE TRUTH HURTS!
<span>"T":</span>
<span>" WHY CANT WE BUILD EM LIKE WE USED TO!?"</span>
We can. We should.
The fault lies not in our ships, but in our flag officers.
Burke. Bulkeley. Raborn. (I leave Rickover out, because the Navy only promoted him to flag rank when they had a gun to their head.)
Nobody much like that around here, mores the pity.
Sid: Agreed, But...The cat's out of the bag anyway. Look up the individual ships' web sites, or order a disc.
"When you're out of FRAMs, you're out of cans."
But...
But....
The LCS is. Just. AWESOME!
And "elegant" too.
Even a WW II era John C Butler class DE would take an LCS. Build new, with Gas Turbines, 5/54 fore and aft, RIM in place of the Mount 42, MK 48 triple tube in the TT position, Modern sonar, and a 12 round ASROC VLS instead of Mount 41. Place MK 38 25mm guns where the Oerlikons went, and you would have a superb littoral warship, and a nice little convoy escort.
<span>Once<span> MANSFIELD realizes what it's up against, it closes to point-blank range while firing torpedos. The torpedos probably won't hit anything, but they will give the LCS crew something to talk about. It eventually brings that LCS under the direct fire of not only the 6 5" guns, but the 12 40mm. LCS gets ripped apart.</span></span>
<span><span></span></span>
<span><span>"</span>OK shipmate - you can ride the 1971 version of the USS MANSFIELD<span>..."</span></span>
<span><span></span></span>
<span><span>Don't you mean 1951?</span> </span>
Sal, I think you may have overstated the capability of the 57mm BOFORS cannon. While its max range may be 9nm, its max EFFECTIVE range is much, much less, about 2nm-5nm. Little Crappy Ship is not going to get it done against a vietnam era DD, nor a DLG.
Solution set to the current problems with shipbuilding:
1. Reconstitute OP-03, bring back the Barrons, kill N8.
2. Reconstitute Navy Materiel Command. Kill NAVSEA.
3. Fire any SECNAV or CNO who does not list "Fighting and Winning Wars at Sea" as their number one priority. Sexual Harassment, Diversity as number one priorities have their place: on episodes of Law & Order.
4. Bring back training and real skill sets to the machinery spaces: NO MORE TECH ASSISTS.
5. Be realistic. We cannot afford 313 ships. We can't even afford 280 ships. 240 M1 READY TO FIGHT AND WIN SHIPS. THAT DOES NOT LEAVE ROOM FOR 55 LITTLE CRAPPY SHIPS. DDGs, CGs, CVNs, SSNs, SSBNs, FFG(R) [what LCS should have been].
IMAO....
It will be sad when the shock of impacting ordnance pops that delusional BS...
Shoot, Mansfield was FRAMed right? So they wouldn't even need the 5"/38 battery, the 3"/50s alone would be enough to deal with the SH-60 and the LCS.
It would also give the LCS ASW mission module something to do.....oh wait they haven't delivered yet.
Give me MANSFIELD with a Firescout. Don't remember a lot of good things said about DASH. I have the wash khakis too (including a wash khaki cover for the combination cap that was required of bridge watchstanders on many ships back then).
BTW, I vaguely remember something about MANSFIELD also being hit by gunfire during Vietnam (my second CO had been her XO). Can't confirm that however.
Long time ago, I spent a Reserve cruise aboard HANK DD-702. Built at Kearny, NJ.
As an E2 I was able to stand every watch aboard ship, from down in Engineering up to the helm and bridge lookouts.
The 5"-38s were awesome, as were the stern rack dropped depth charges - simply amazing.
Hank was FRAM 1, not 2, so there was no DASH or ASROC.
The QH-50 DASH was not manned, but a spindly drone bird made by Gyrodyne. It was equipped with counter rotating or ccoaxial rotors and was quite prone to control problems. I believe she was armed with twin MK 46 torpeckers. Many went into the drink.
Will a Sumner hold her own against our newest and smallest? You answered that Q, and quite well.
Well, for me it is FFG-7 class hull with slightly larger topside gun (5"), ASROC/Harpoon VLS instead Mk26 launcher, and bolt-on 25mm autocanons. For an AAA variant replace aft hangar/helo deck with large SM-2 VLS.
There's a lot of merit to this idea. Ship steel is cheap...combat systems are pricey.
SJB, The configuration that you describe for USS HANK (no ASROC or DASH) would indicate that she was a "non-FRAM". The photos from the '60s that I found when I "googled" her confirm that. At some point her 21" torpedo tubes were removed but that was about it. A few of theses ships survived into the late '60s the most noteworthy of which was USS FRANK KNOX which ran aground on Pratas Reef in the South China Sea.
For info, DASH was also intended to carry a nuclear depth charge although I don't know that the system was ever certified to do so. The DE/FF 1052 class was originally intended to have a DASH capability and the torpedo magazine was fitted with the "FZ" nuclear weapons alarm system. Even 'though it was always flagged out, you still had to do maintenance on it and it was inspected during you annual nuclear weapons inspection.
Let me add that another, more famous, "non-FRAM" was USS MADDOX (DD 731) of the Tonkin Gulf incident.
CDore 13: 'tis a pleasure!
Having changed-over into Airdale-hood while on active duty, the details of HANK have grown a tad fuzzy. Heck that was over 2/3s of my life ago. Still, the experience was wonderful for a 19 year old. At that time, taking pictures of your ship was not strongly encouraged.
I was an ecperienced small boat handler and HANK handled like a dream. There was no need to "mind my rudder".
I do recall her having twin forward Hedgehog stations, I believe one remaining three inch mount topside and the three twin 5"-38s. No balsa rafts. At that time I learned of Gertrude and the listening capabilities of her SONAR on the way back from Bermuda. I also recall hauling trash to the fantail from the mess decks and scullery. We did it all.
My understanding is that HANK served into the 80s for Argentina and may have launched some Exocets against the Brits significantly outlasting my active duty ride, ESSEX.
Let's also admit that National Security Cutter would also get its butt kicked by a Sumner class DD.
We all knew that if we were using those, we prolly were not coming back.
But a USCGC is built for something other than as a pure warship, which is Sumner/Gearing's pedigree.
I wouild still give the edge to a USCG medium-endurance cutter of roughly half the displacement of the LCS in a square fight.
I spent 1981 to 1984 as the ASW instructor at NWTGP and had a lot of time to look over the specs that were given for the deployment and escape for the B-57. A lot of misinformation was out there about the B57, all of it leaned very heavily to the pessimistic side. There was not a fixed wing aircraft capable of both dropping the weapon and going slow enough to get caught by the effects. The H-3, on the other hand, would have to beat feet to clear the area. The VAST majority of the blast was contained in the water (otherwise why bother) and any other effects were no factor at all to the delivery aircraft unless it flew right back into the area. The only problem from a tactical point of view was the mess it made of the acoustics.
Lethal warships.
Been reading the Destroyerman series by Taylor Anderson. It is an interesting series of books but the most interesting part is what it says about the crew. Those were the sailors I remember. Make anything, fix anything.
Ewok, wouldn't work on a Perry like you mentioned. For starters, Harpoon is a pretty crappy missile, first designed to sink Soviet diesel subs. And putting heavy VLS in the space occupied by the helo hangars would place an even worse load on the after half of the ships meta-center at frame 198. Also, the VLS would require a radar to aquire and guide the missile, something the Perry's do not have.
And yes, it was a wonderful vacation :)
Don't remember a lot of good things said about DASH.
In many respects, DASH got a bad rap. The way it developed and rolled out -along with its rice bowl breaking potential- pretty much guaranteed that it would fail
well, harpoon has been proven aginst Libyan and Iranian targets in combat. if you want mach 3 heavy hitter SS-N-22 would fit the bill, but its 3 or more times heavier than harpoon, and more bulky.
Ole Fo,
I was H-3's and I can remember training missions in the WST that had a scenario for a NB drop.. The problem in an H-3 was the deploy speed and alt for the bomb.. something like less than 70 - 90 kts and less than 250 feet... the problem then became a how do you transition into get the hell out of there speed and not expect a blast to know the little rotor blades off the helo..
your point on the emulsification of the water column is a another good one.. feel bad for the sonar tech listening in when the arrow goes in!
Hard to run or hide from one of these puppies....
That's right. Ships all had not just a repair shop stocked with parts, but tools and machinery to fabricate parts if needs be.
The problem is that some people who want LCS cancelled would turn around and replace it with NSC. Nope. LCS can't stand toe to toe with a Sumner class and neither would an NSC. At least LCS can run. So to replace LCS with something that could go toe-to-toe, you will need to go back to the drawing board.
A small unmanned UAV like DASH would allow an air capability on a narrow deck like a Sumner class. Current ships seem to require a wide beam due to operating fairly large manned rotary wing platforms. Now admittedly, if you want to move people with a rotary wing craft you need to be able to put people in it. Which you can't with a small UAV.
But the very concept of littoral combat means the ship must STAY, and can't always run. Back to the drawing board would be a good idea.
The NSC might be a very good design to use as a baseline. Increased armament. The WHEC used to carry a 5"/38 and could accomodate a 5"/54. Increase in speed capability to 35 knots, and you might have something a hell of a lot more robust and survivable, and certainly something more lethal, than LCS.
Not saying NSC is the design to go with, but it would be a possibility.
doc....
Your idea that we MUST stick with the current LCS designs because there is nothing else is...well...Wrong.
Why must we stick with a fragile fuel hog design that everyone knows won't perform any of its intended missions well?
Because thats all the like of Lockheed and Northrop Griumman have to offer?
A Pox on them and their flatuous PR BS
While I agree with that the NSC -AS CURRENTLY DESIGNED- is a poor choice as well, at least its more conventional hull could serve as a basis for a full up warship design.
The current LCS offerings are reduced to a sad joke by the silly speed requirement each was designed to meet.
if all else fails buy license on German MEKO series of your chosing...
URR, I disagree with that statement. The national security cutter was built for interoperability with a Carrier Strike Group, hence the ASCM defense (NULKA, CIWS 1B, SEWIP), and its 57mm BOFORS gun.
(full disclosure: worked on the combat systems team)
Salty,
While the NSC was built with weapons and information systems to allow it to work interoperably with a CSG, this is not the primary mission of the 418-footers.
From the USCG Acquisitions doc:
..."maritime security, law enforcement, and national security missions..."
The document goes on to list design features for the NSC in terms of traditional USCG missions, with interagency operability among them, but certainly not first.
The Sumners and Gearings were built to fight. Period.
You mean it wasn't lean manned and repair sluffed off to a repair facility 5,000 miles.......Oh imagine that it kinda sounds SMART. Can't have that in Vern's Navy......
MTH, Most of the ASW Tac-Nukes were pretty much worthless from an operational standpoint beyond the fact that their kill-potential was probably higher than the MK 44 ASW torpedo of the time. Unfortunately the damage they would inflict on the launch platform and the effect of the weapon on the ability to confirm target destruction probably outweighed that benefit. I was told that after USS AGERHOLM (DD 825) test-fired an ASROC RTDC warshot in the early '60s she had to towed away from the test area because of the damage that the reflected shock wave did to her boiler brickwork.
I always considered the space reserved for the RTDCs in the ASROC magazine (Can neither confirm nor deny) to be wasted, especially after HARPOON was introduced.
SJB, That configuration sounds correct. The 3"/50s replaced the original 40 mm mounts and believe that MK 32 SVTT replaced the original torpedo installation.
AW1, Your comments take me back to my first tour as DCA. My division included an E5/6 Machinery Repairman (MR) and a senior Shipfitter (SF) with a high-pressure welder certification. We also scrapped together enough stuff for a low-tech motor rewind capability and I remember more than one occasion when we used the galley oven to dry out an electric motor that shorted out.
Yup... thinking outside the box, rather than waiting for parts to become available. It just seems to me that is so many cases, folks are stuck on the procedure, rather than the need or end result. Meanwhile the #2 SSTG still needs an oil filter.......
I remember the Maintenance Chief at VP-10 being surprised that I had a 3rd class FCC license. I got it in High School through the Voc Classes I took, and it paid off in spades later on, because it got me out od some classes at "A" school. ;)
Believe that's the good ship, USS AGERHOLM (DD 825) in the foreground.
Also believe that this may have been the last above ground test of a nuclear weapon by the US before the Atmospheric Test Ban Treaty.
URR,
Right with you there.<span> </span>While the combat systems on NSC might be fine, we are talking hull here.<span> </span>
sid,
I do not think we should entertain modifications to the NSC hull as an acceptable LCS replacement.<span> </span>It wasn’t designed to be a combatant.<span> </span>The modifications required would add enough weight to make the ship maneuver like a pig.<span> </span>Let’s either start with an existing combatant hull (Perry, Sprucan, Forrest Sherman, whatever) or go to a new design that is as a combatant through and through.<span> </span>This NSC replacement scheme is a sham.
The only point I am trying to make with regard to LCS is that we are in slash and burn budget time.<span> </span>If the Navy lets go of the only small combatant in the POM, don’t plan for a replacement.<span> </span>The smallest ship in the fleet will be a DDG for quite some time.<span> </span>Maybe even from here on out.<span> </span>The budget space that will open up from LCS cancellation will be eaten up by OMB.<span> </span>I really think we need to be prepared to make the case for a.) LCS is so bad it needs to be cancelled and we live with a smaller fleet made of big ships or b.) argue hard to modify the suckers (LCS that is).<span> Not saying that's the only way to go just that the noises from OMB and OSD ATL aren't encouraging. </span>
LPD, A gang, motor rewind capability, oven, baking bearings and reshaping them, lathe, milling machine, one lethal mean MRC, fix everything but the 16000 pound weapons elevator that was trapped on diamond knurled elevator failure thingies which kept it from falling 6 decks into the LFORM magazine and through the bottom of the ship. Other than that and the B&A crane, every single system onboard could be fixed by ship's company. Probably could have fixed the crane if I put a bullet through the first LT and Bosun's head.
Shaping a commutator ring on the generator by hand by holding a 'stone' against the ring which only flew out of the EMC's hands twice and had to be "found" somewhere in the engineroom. 1800 RPM. I guess fools do things like that. Staying in the fight. That was something.
For those that ride the elevator, know that the speed knob works. Every single point of lift failed on that elevator and only it "fell" about 10 feet before those diamond knurled speed deamons arrested its fall.
Our 3"50 were reliable for about 3 shots before a jam. How we laughed when Capt. Julian promised the pilots of HM14 that if Perim opened fire we would. Poor bastards. Still, it was funny.
As Engineer in 83-85, I had an MR2, but no HP welders, bing a "clean snipe" on a 963. I'll say my ex-EN GMSC later GSCS, the GS1 turned GSMC and a brilliant GSE1 and some 3M ETs aboard...we kept moving several times. Then we got to "board swapping" by the time I was XO in 88 time frame.
C-dore.. good point! great history! man the stories we could all tell and the lessons we could teach..
Byron;
For once I have to correct you.
1) Harpoon does not need a radar. The SM2/3 needs the radar/illuminators for terminal homing on air targets.
1a) Harpoon has began life to sink Soviet WARSHIPs, emphasized is "ships" as in things floating. Never designed for anti-sub, even if you may catch one on the surface and get lucky, it needs to "see" the target on it's radar for terminal homing. Not to mention the terminal flight path of the Harpoon would make it less effective against a low freeboard/narrow beam target. Later, the SLAM was developed from the Harpoon airframe for land attack on a budget. That would use GPS and other means to find the target and hit it besides MK99 Illuminators.
2) I believe your anti-sub thought is about the ASROC, Has a current Mk41 VLS version. Has a LW torp on the front end...you dump it in close, the torp finds it's own target once in the water (unless your targeting solution off the UBFCS sux).
3) Point of fact: Initial desgin of the PF-109 (what the FFG-7 was derived from) had a 5" gun, not the 76mm. The 5"/54cal LWGM was specifically designed to go abaord, and as a design weight consideration deleted self venting hydraulic blocks. That was a decision whiched really sucked on the 963s, where a few hundred lbs per mount extra wasn't a stability issue, but manually venting after significant reapairs took about 24 hours. The GMC abaord, Don Dolence, showed it all to me, and explained to this young then JG on the fantail next to a fully depressed gun barrel of MT52 how it would slow down a return to combat status, if we had to work on the hydraulics in a real shoot 'em up. Reality: The FFGs maybe could carry the 5"/54 LWGMs, depending on how the beginning 3600 ton FFGs, which grew to 4100 tons have been configured over the years, most likely negating this option, without sacrificing accepted mods.
4) The standard outfitting for MEF deployments for FFGs and 963s included adding a 25MM. we had ours in the standard location on the STBD deck, just forward of the MK 32 Triple tubes. If ASW isn't an issue, remove the MK32s and put Bushmasters on each midships deck for counterbalance.
ewok40k;
The effective Harpoons off Libya were the first shots of the 86 "El Dorado Canyon" episode. Fired from an A6E, but not the one who reported the La Combatante sighting mid evening. I was sitting listening to the radios. The response to sighting was "What's your load?" Response: "Rockeye and APAM." Direction: "Take with Rockeye and APAM." A few minutes later: "6XX: BDA?" Answer: "Hit with 2 Harpoons!" response: "HARPOONS? YOu didn't have HARPONNS!" "Yeah, but 6XY did!" "Roger" Take with Rockeye/APM, then check for survivors."
Laterr than night the USS YORKTOWN (CG-48) pickled off a Harpoon at a SPY-1 contact. Nothing was found anywhere along the flight path. Later eval showed contact at 400+ ft altitude. I have my theroy, as CAP Station 5 was hollering about AAA, which was the reason YORKTOWN fired the ASM.
The next day, while on watch, I back plotted CAP Sta 5 location, and the location of the La Combatante. Since F-14s don't go on station and remain within a few feet of same, it look like the secondaries and fires on the La Combatante would have been very near right under Sta 5, causing a nervous Turkey driver to yell for help....they weren't BOMBCATs back then, just AAW missile trucks. Oh...theyre were no survivors, nor did they react at all on the first devastaing attack. I suspect the Libyan NCA failed to let them know, after the afternoon firings of SA-5s at our aircraft, that they should stand by for US retaliation. Poor sailors died without a chance to defend themselves.
In Praying Mantis, after the STARK, the Iranians got a dose of Harpoons in the ASM mode... :) I'm figuring they didn't head for the Suez this past week after someone dusted off those post-combat reports. The Isralei Navy has had Harpoons for decades, along with Pengiuns and their homegrown ASM capability.
That "Guest" was me. On a loaner computer...and it didn't autofill.
That "Guest" was me. On a loaner computer...and it didn't autofill.
I was a sad day when ADM John Bulkeley, the Sea Wolf, was no longer doing INSERVs. He was ruthless on the shore based guys and their fancy systems. His crusade "against" the CIWS wasn't that. He said "If you say it's the last line of defense, then I'm going to test it for 100% performance!" He wanted to see ships survive, and it a system promised it was that good, he merely was out to show it was...or to unmask the pretenders.
He also was hell on the inflatable life rafts...and proved the the capacity for the crew, if only had them with a 50% realiability, was too few aboard.
I also know his regular "no camber in the deck" hits, taken presonally by many ship drivers and their chains of command, was about making ships survivable in the real potential of the NBC warfare. Net result: When the DDG-51 first drawings came out, he raised hell, and pulled out a mountain of reports and forced the redesign, having a slope in the weather decks being one of several, for the survival of the crews and the combat abillities. He was a man of vision and real combat experience.
Men like that werer the sailors friend. We have long since lost that "work ethic."
The reason we had to provide exothermic torches to our DC teams aboard ship came from the STARK attack. Tyring to use an acytelene torch to cut through a bulkhead was not effective, beacuse the alumium disappated the heat too quickly. When they were trying to get into the topside spaces to dewater, they had to bash their way in with sledge hammers to crack the aluminum by fatiguing it. And then you need more complex welders to come and do any repairs. Steel is better for many reasons.
xformed: On target, fire for effect. Uncle John was all about readiness to fight a desperate battle for survival, no holds barred, one minute from now. A great man, zero BS, and the finest naval officer I ever served with, admittedly as a pup to his BIG DOG.
He was from out of town. He had a brief case. He truly KNEW just about everything Naval. He was a complete gentleman and the real deal. The man was afraid of nothing on this earth, God rest his heroic soul.
Every thing he did was to save sailors lives and make and keep the USN the finest in history.
His biography, "The Sea Wolf", should be required reading for all US Navy Sailors, forever.
Sid:
Apologies for the obscure locution. Re reading I can see how it was poorly written.
The LCS should just die. But not because we "can't build 'em like we used to", but because the Senior Leadership have made sucker bets for the last two decades.
Why the Navy keeps promoting guys to Flag who buy the stuff they do....dunno.
But the Navy can do better. Way better.
On topics like this... well, let's just say my brain is one big pink marshmallow peep. But it's always impressive to see the depth and breadth of experience of the folks here. Quite a think-tank.
Norman Friedman likes to point out that there are some good reasons why modern ships seem oversized and underarmed compared to older ones and that it doesn't matter cost wise. For example. habitability standards are much higher today than they were, both because people want better standards, but also to accomodate facts like people being taller, which means more space between decks, longer bunks, etc. As for why it doesn't matter, ship steel is the cheapest part of a modern ship. If you took a Burke weapons suite, sensors, and engines and stuck them into a container ship hull, the end result wouldn't cost all that much more than a normal burke, but you might be able to do a lot with all that space in terms of survivability, room for expansion, etc. Of course, you could never build such a ship because the navy would look at it and go "surely a ship this big could have more of x" until the hull was full of expensive missiles and electronics.
The only relevant way to compare ships is by cost, which is, of course, very hard to do. but using proxies for cost such as length or displacement just muddies the water.
Nice consideration, and might I add , some extra room is great for storing smal contingent of Marines or some humanitarian aid - see Salamanders fave, Danish Absalom class... Littoral doesnt mean Liliput...
One thing I might add is crucial to ship's survival is the crew's DC skill. USS Stark and Cole have proved USN has those skills still.
'..turret from a self-propelled gun' - are you thinking along the lines of the MONARC experiment the German's tried a few years back?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MONARC
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8fkWTISxYu8
so anyway, ASROC is just about the most pathetic weapon system ever built? You guys knew that right.
What you said. Out to a certain distance Harpoon were ultra deadly. They had two launch modes. Both of them would have a profound impact.
Sure it is...but if you lob one onto a possible contact, you can force him to honor the threat and kick it up, which helps the helo's (and once upon a time, the Hoovers) prosecute his ass. The downside is the abysmally short range, which means the sub is close enough to shoot one at YOU.
"If he fires one, I'll fire one"...
"Fire One, Aye". "Weapon away!".
The Enemy Below (1957)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Enemy_Below
Yes indeed, but with the Paladin (M-109 nextgen) turret.
It's already a fully stabilized system, and with it's armored bustle rack, there's 39 rounds of 155mm ready ammo right to hand. I can't see more than that initially, without some sort of decision to the fight. Have a large magazine below her and aft, and where the forward VLS is located. The 155 is a 6.1" gun, and already has a variety of ammunition available.
AW1: "The Enemy Below" is indeed an old favorite and offers a nice look at a Buckley in her prime, although the UBoat set is obviously a set. The lines quoted, I believe, are from "The Bedford Incident", with James MacArthur as the Ensign and Richard Widmark as the semicrazy Captain. The flick is an antiwar defeatist stinker, but the scene was always a good example to use when explaining the need for discipline wrt face to face communications between watch standers, and why officers on the bridge should be all business all the time and take the small talk out on the wing.
So the scene was very useful as a bad example.
My memory isn't what it used to be, but I believe Grandpa is correct. Both movies are favorites of mine with "The Enemy Below" having a slight edge.
Yes, you are, of course, correct. The Bedford Incident is what I meant, with Wally Cox as the over-stressed seaman. Both movies are doggone good, and I, too, reccomend them highly.
And yes, the anti-war theme in The Bedford Incident is full on. However, I could get around that because I was always interested in the ship, ASW, the situation, etc. In short, I could tune those parts out. :)
<span>Tim,
I advocated a couple of years ago for the development of the M284 cannon (the tube in the M109A6) for use aboard naval vessels. Because it is a shipboard cannon and cross country mobility is not a consideration, a longer 45-caliber or 52-caliber tube would be appropriate, increasing range as much as 30% over the 39-caliber Cannon M284.
The tradeoff would be that the M284 is a howitzer tube, firing lighter projectiles than a 6" naval rifle at significantly lower muzzle velocity. The 6"/47 caliber of the Brooklyn CLs fired projectiles up to 130 pounds at MVs of 800+ m/s, whereas the M284 fires the M795 projectile which has a standard weight of 103 pounds, firing at an MV of about 680 m/s.
Not impossible to overcome, and with modern propellants and course correction fuzes, a hell of a lot of potential there that has been hitherto ignored.</span>
Agreed.
Well, ASROC at least allows to deploy torp in the vicinity of target instead of launching from your own ship which radically shortens the reaction time for the sub (fight or flight). Did they modernise ASROC to be Mk50 tipped instead Mk46?
I've always enjoyed the first part of "The Enemy Below" which has a fairly realistic depiction of how a spurious radar contact combined with intelligence can transition to an ASW action.
As for "The Bedford Incident" the anti-war theme is quite strong although it captures the tedium of an extended lost contact search pretty accurately. The film was produced in England (Pinewood Studios, I believe) and the shipboard sequences were filmed either in the studio or aboard a British "County Class" cruiser. The COONTZ-Class DLG is a model. However, I wince every time I watch them try to disarm the ASROC RTDC after it's launched.
Ironically, my entire Class was marched over to Mahan Hall to watch "The Bedford Incident" at the end of our first week of Plebe Summer back in 1966. I still remember my roommate and I punching each other in the ribs to keep awake.
Curtis, I don't know. If you were on a DDG-2 and didn't have a helo available it sure beat the heck out of the alternative.
Grandpa, In the late '80s VADM Buckley used to bring a group of his senior inspectors up to Newport to brief the Senior Officer Ships Material Readiness Course (SOSMRC) students about the INSURV process and the problems they were encountering. The first impression was that the guy was well past his prime as he apparently dozed in the back of the classroom. That was until some topic that was a major problem would come up (it was the 26' MWB in my class) and he would sit straight up and discuss it fully and intelligently. It was a great session and us PCOs learned a lot from it.
Certainly agree with you about his view of his role as head of the INSURV Board.
Hull mounted sonars onboard all REAL destroyers are either bow mounted and mounted roughly one-fifth of the way aft of the stem.
I don't expect any LCS to every get a hull mounted sonar, as they would slow them down. Just as LCS-1 and LCS-3 will probably never extend their large fin to reduce ship's rolling movements. Wonder why the Navy even bothered to install those two roll fins anyway ? LCS will have to resort to some dipping/towed sonar, which means that LCS will not be performing ASW searches 24/7 underway.
All real destroyers and frigates have hull mounted sonars, which enemy submarines should respect. No sub needs to fear an LCS in moderate sea states/winds. Just as no enemy ashore needs to fear those 2 155mm gun mounts carried onboard DDG-1000 when the sea state is above 3 or 4 because they cannot elevate and train and fire them. US Navy is becoming kinder, gentler, and fair weather only.
LCS sailors getting DC training at the FTC trainer every "off hull" period.
MK26 or MK13?
Also, the STIR fire control radar on Perry class frigates was for missile guidance.
The STIR's missile guidance was for the Standard Missile not Harpoon.
Assume he means MK 13. The MK 26 was on the Virginia Class CGNs, the Kidd Class DDGs, and the first 4 Ticos. Don't believe the Mk 26 had a Harpoon capability as those ships carried theirs in canisters.
I thought it was just me. Thanks.
Gotta have enough of them alive and in one spot to carry on the DC effort...
Oh. And it would help if the ship were to stay at least somewhat combat effective while its still floating too.
Don't say its impossible either...
With just ~40 people on ship designs that have been called "unsurvivable" even <span>after</span> the inclusion of NVR, what are the chances?
Jesus, Curtis........did I serve with you on Mighty Warship Austin?
URR and Company,
I like where you are at when you are talking about Hull. The USCGC Bertholf is not SHOCK QUALIFIED. It is only rated to ice breaking, which is not the same obviously as the ice breaking vibrations travel in different vectors than either a direct impact or a torp exploding nearby.
That being said, look at the USCGC Bertholf. That thing is the size of a DDG. Almost ALL USCG missions do not require that size. The ship was designed to roll with a strike group. And secretly the USCG was hoping to defray cost of procuring her by having the USN buy the ship as an LCS variant. THAT is a true story all around. In fact, they are STILL TRYING.
No Harpoon capability ont eh MK26 "Double armed bandit." MK 13 GMLS used to grace the bow of the FFG-7 and some of the ADAMS Class DDGs. The MK 13 and associated MK92 FCS on the FFGs never got modded to handle the SM2 birds for command guidance...probably not as much a technical issue, as a budget /priority one...and of course, the AEGIS Mafia being very protective of their navy within a navy, when they weren't the majority of the hulls at sea.
Ideally, you drop one just on his stbd bow and he never gets a chance to "kick it up" before SONAR calls "Loud Underwater Explosion!" Firing off one of those boosters, just to see whose out there is a big gamble, when you're skulking around, trying to see who stays quiet the longest. That idea, is however, an approved tactic when you had a close aboard, previously undetected SONAR contact, in which case, a NRO (no run out) Mk46 (showing my age)/50 was to be punched out right now! The TMs had one loaded, just for such moments...when we had real subs as real enemies.
A Global Force for Goodness....
<span><span><span>Salty,
I never said I was a qualified naval architect. But I will tell you this: I know damned good and well that a $600 million flat-sided, aluminum. undercrewed speedboat with neither the armament to kill another ship nor the ability to absorb even a small modicum of damage hasn't ANY CHANCE of surviving in the littorals. And if that gold-plated POS is supposed to be supporting me and my Marines ashore, my chances just dropped precipitously.
Shock-tested or not shock tested, I would take a vessel based on the Bertholf hull over that damned albatross that is nothing but a hemmorhage of Navy shipbuilding dollars. Give me a tough, hard-hitting, versatile, survivable platform. Current design ain't it.
And yes, that is a damned fine automobile in my avatar box, thanks for asking! ;) </span></span></span>
Salty,
Was you on Austin in 1995-96? We did a firex and a phibex at Vieques in Jan 1996.
C-dore: It is said that in his alleged (by others) dotage, Churchhill would doze on his bench in the House of Commons when debate was uninteresting. A young turk became exceeding wroth because every time he stood up to say his bit the old gentleman would nod off, and lost it, snarling "Old man, must you fall asleep every time I rise to address the House?!"
Churchhill opened one eye and rumbled "No, it is completely voluntary."
Uncle John was just monitoring for interesting topics while keeping cerebral station at minimum (neural ) speed. Patroling/night steaming.
Over a decade earlier, he would start the week by climbing the mast with the CO of the CV of the week and then take him down a winding spiral stroll to the fireroom boiler refractory and below. In his late sixties or so, with the vigor of a fresh caught Lt.
Crusading about confusing CV nav and deck lights, ill considered habitability measures compromising the lethality of new construction (Spruances), fire risk reduction and the survivablility of in service hulls, unreliable DC gear, heat stress, aluminum construction, sound galley and food storeroom sanitation, constant main battery alignment, and the importance of in depth training from E1 to CO. Successfully for the most part, if not permanently, alas.
In his prime, well... his little experimental MTBRON in the Phillipines shot down more enemy aircraft on Dec 8/9 than the USArmy Air Corps (oh, and The Medal for getting MacArthur out)...nuff said.
Yes, I've meant Mk13... anyway I think new radar capable of guiding SM-2 wouldnt be a big issue, Euro and Asian AEGIS ships manage to do with locally built fire control AFAIK.
Though I am convinced after hearing Byron that AEGIS maybe is better left for the Burke -sized hulls. When you bring AEGIS you need a lot of cells, unless you need only a token air defence where AIM-120 derivative probably suffices (or Evolved Sea Sparrow).
URR, the only ship I was on during that time was this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Flagg
Unfortunately I missed all the fun with Vieques. By the time I got out of NROTC, Vieques was shut down. Yeah, I'm dating myself. Still U-30.
It would be impossible to significantly increase the speed of the NSC. If you want a 35 knot hull, you have to design a 35kt hull. You could double the installed shaft horsepower and probably not reach 35kts.
Just wanted to note that we have a FbF with over 100 comments. Nice work porch ... nice work!
And the 100+ comments were all technical and arcane and full of historicity! This is quite a group!
When you run a FbF featuring a SUMNER/GEARING you shouldn't be surprised.
KUDOS! KUDOS! ALL HAIL US!
The Israeli version of the LCS, gentlemen (and lady Delta Bravo). Read it and weep. This is what it should have been. http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/files/LCS_Lockheed_Israel_Variant_Brochure.pdf
<span>The Israeli version of the LCS, gentlemen (and lady Delta Bravo). Read it and weep. This is what it should have been</span>
Gotta call you on that one Salty...
You put all that crap in the LCS hull, and it would wallow like a pig first off. Gotta remember that the LCS hulls were esentially built for one thing: Stupid Speed. They simply do no have the dispalcement margins a more conventional hull has.
Next, is that even with NVR, the hulls are essentially unsurvivable. I've posted the rationale behind that from then NAVSEA RAdm Hamilton (in an interview where Landay was present as well) many times. The LCS is supposed to be "smart" enough to be able to leverage that (stupid) speed, and evade threats. Take away the speed, and you have a dangersously vulnerable warship.
Then load up said glass-jawed hull with major weaponry...And folks will naturally consider it a major warship capable of fighting in a top tier threat environment. For no other reason than thats all they will have.
The enemy will see them that way as well, and give them due attention.
With predictable results.
Wayne Hughes says that a fleet with an imbalance of firepower vs. "staying power' is a dangerously imbalanced one.
And its the one that all too many folks think we need to build.
The Hughes quote:
“Fleets weak in staying power relative to their combat power are in an unstable condition. They are subject to destruction and defeat at the same time their ordnance is delivered. Such fleets must operate in a highly risk-averse mode, as if tactically paranoid.”
Can't expect to stay and fight in the Littorals while remaining "risk-averse"....
<span>Take away the speed, and you have a dangersously vulnerable warship. </span>
Even as baseline LCS's, these hulls are growing ever heavier...and slower.
And we now see its official on the decrepit maintenance staus of the "smarts" part as well.
As for the NSC. The GAO stated last year that its even more fragile than the LCS hulls. Can't find the link just now though. But, anyway, the design would need a quite expensive rework to be brought up to at least the Level II Survivability standard of a Frigate.
And we all know that the LCS is now an official Frigate proxy...Protestations to the contrary.
But with so few ships by 2020, how many can the USN afford to lose?
Said it before. Sayin' it again.
Those who advocate "commercial" design standards in warships as a cost savings will ensure someone pays dearly in the end...
In terms of blood and lost battles.
An affordable fleet that cannot AFFORD to fight will be the outcome.
I agree with your analysis, however, when you get rid of the speed requirement, and get rid of the mission modules (and the cost that is associated with it), then you have a "street fighter" which is, dare I say, more expendable. Let's face it: if you are fighting in the littorals, you are going to take hits. You have two options: win with the numbers game, or go back to building 16" Belt Armor. By the way, we have LOST that technology as well as the plans to make the machines neccessary to produce such armor.
Problem is... Lose the speed below 40 kts, and neither the (stupid) 3000 ton semi-displacment hull, nor the (stupid) 3000 ton aluminum trimaran makes any sense.
In the littorals, its about numbers for more reasons than just getting hit.
I ping on him alot, but Galrhan has broken that out quite well.
And, as for numbers versus armor...
In small ships, there is a reasonable middle ground, when combined with tactics and doctrine.
More here...
And here...
S-Gator
It isn't armor per se. It's frame spacing, compartmentation, water tight integrity, Casualty systems (fire main, power, ventilation isolation, redundancy, CREW SIZE and training. DC design, DC equipage, DC installed systems, DC independent pumps, shoring, jacks, dewatering capability, machinery mounting, DC discipline, DC training, first aid training, Medical Dept MANNING, etc, etc. See my old comments for the last since I showed up. P. S: no damn aluminum, but I've beaten that horse down to a gelatinous mass with hooves protruding.
A warship has to fight hurt. LCS can't. See also USS Laffey.....
You can load up it with more weapons but it will be still eggshell armed with sledgehammer.
Beattys Bloody Battlecruisers of 1916, anyone?
We need QE class, not Battlecruiser.
Post a Comment