They are incredibly powerful warships, beautiful to boot - modern day Battlecruisers - and would be a wonderful asset to any Navy .... but .... in 2011, what would be in every submariners "Top-3 Targets" list?
The Russian Defense Ministry is planning to refit three mothballed nuclear-powered Kirov-class missile cruisers in a major boost for the Russian Navy's combat strength, Izvestia newspaper said on Wednesday.
As a side-note; I had to deal with Kirov Hull 1 and a Victor III all in one day as an Ensign FWIW. A great Cold War day.
The Admiral Nakhimov, Admiral Lazarev and Admiral Ushakov nuclear missile cruisers were built in the Soviet era but have been decommissioned and laid up in dock for over a decade. The only active Kirov class cruiser is the Pyotr Veliky, the flagship of Russia's Northern Fleet.
...
The ships' armament will get a major boost, with installation of advanced multi-module missile systems capable of firing a wide range of missiles and torpedoes, including P-800 Yakhont (SS-N-26) anti-ship cruise missiles.
The ships will also receive advanced air defense missile systems based on the land-based S-400 Triumf, and new point-defense systems.
Each cruiser will have a total missile carrying capacity of 300 missiles, making the ships among the best armed in the world.
Looks like you kiddies will get a chance to play with the old Soviet beasts too! Nothing better than a Kirov coming out of the fog....
Good times ... good times.
100 comments:
How soon do we get our 600 ship Navy back?
And something equivalent to an F-14 to protect it?
So, how is it that the Russian Navy can refit three Kirovs, but we cannot possibly see how we could have refit five nearly-new Ticonderogas? Or any of the other major combatants that we decommissioned, and then sank/scrapped, at half of their service lives?
Hell, I'd be happy if we could sustain a freaking 300 ship navy! We have a total lack of focus on warfighting capabilities now. But, hey, we have TONS of metrics and accountability studies on numbers and "goals (read quotas)" of brown, black, red (by God, forget the yellow) skin colors in the Fleet.
diversity, "you keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
Such a lovely inspiration for any SSN officer who aspires to command. A worthy opponent. First of the girls and guys now in the baby nuke pipeline to bag one gets a Navy Cross.
Russian Battlecruisers. It's what's for dinner.
Just remember kids, Engineering Expertise is a necessary but not sufficient condition to winning a war at sea. One has to be a really superior predator, more than anything else. Anything.
"<span>One has to be a really superior predator, more than anything else. Anything."</span>
Including a lesbian black woman? (The "three-fer"?)
Kirov Smirov. The Russians will crumble once we add LGBT appreciation month to the calendar.
Because the Russians aren't transformational, silly.
Just in time for the POM-14 Fleet Reductions...
But UltimaRatioRegis, we have a diversity program, modular Littoral Combat Ships (sans modules, of course), married homosexuals and women on submarines! The russians might have warfighting capability, but we have social parity! Winning!
Firing point procedure, Master One. Final Bearing and Shoot......
Well, it is about time Russians moved up from below-100 ships Navy bottom...
Only thing is if global economic downturn reduces the gas/oil prices, entire show will get cancelled.
Oh, and as old harpooner I can tell that if 4 Mk-48s from the LA didnt sink it, LA could have a hard time escaping, especially if there are Red helos in the air. And then there are escorts around the Kirov, usually...
My usual way to deal with Kirov was to send out waves of HARMs, harpoons and similar lighter missiles to deplete its SAM inventory, then go in for a kill with Tomahawks. Or send in a real battleship to deal some fullbore punishment :P
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-navys-influential-presence/2011/09/20/gIQAfttslK_story.html
Go back to the article he is referencing. "Evidently," ADM Roughouse gave some honest Congressional testimony. No discussion of over paying for ships that don't work or don't really have a mission.
Are the seasons about to change?
That's usually what happens after some Russian Admiral announces a fleet of new carriers, new class of subs, or rehabbing the old Kirovs.
How will you really know they are serious? When they have an ocean going tug for each Capital ship.
I'm not trying to be (too) snarky but when a Slava goes on a cruise, there isn't (always) a tug but when Peter the Great or Admiral K go somewhere, the tug is in close attendance.
Damn, she's a beautiful ship though.
We will NEVER have to fight Russia. They have won. the United States of America has become the People's Republic of America. We are a socialist state now. Diversity is the new political officer to make certain the party line is towed, etc. No reason to fight, Freedom has lost, I know this everytime I look at the GMT I have to take annually.
As an old harpooner, I'd put sub in the path and it worked most every time. And a carrier in the area would eventually whittle it down.
The old Harpoon game however, was unable to unleash the dominance of PowerPoint on the Soviet Fleet.
Happiness is Kirove 3m to port,m Kuznetsove 3m to starboard, me at shallow and with 4 Mk48 ADCAPs spun up and ready......
As opposed to LCS 1 and LCS 2, which ply the seas without restraint and never have maintenance issues?
At this stage in the game, I don't think LCS 1 or 2 have gone far enough from shore that a tug wasn't a day away if needed.But I suppose it was kindasorta understood that we are talking WARSHIPS so LCS1 & 2 are really not germane to the conversation (insert smiley pi$$ed off banging head on wall face here)
"<span>1120s Polishing MK-48s Brighter Today"</span>
So, that's what the O-Gangers call it...
Sure it could. Just hit control "N" and give yourself nuclear release. Nukes have the same effects as Powerpoint, just less fallout. :-D
Actually, my experience and a conversation with the coders says that unless you are in a nuclear war scenario, it is almost guaranteed that if you deviate from the standard loadouts and select any nuclear weapon like ASROCS or depth charges that you will get nuked in return. Happened to me twice by the same OscarII that popped up out of no where :)
Remember reading about the idea of turning the iowa's all nuke, removing the guns and refitting for missils. How many could they carry?
Keep Mount 1, replace the boilers with a single reactor that can drive the vessel at 30 knots. Replace four 5"/38 mounts with a single 5"/70, and remove the rest. How many VLS cells could Iowa carry in Place of Mounts 2 and 3? How much could the crew be reduced with the removal of the boiler/fire rooms and the ten twin 5"/38s?
The hull form is still sound. It would give us a NGF capability we have been lacking for decades.
Time to beat the drum for CAGN-1000.... 20K metric tons, triple mount 8"/55 forward, VLS amidships and SH-60B Armed Helo aft. Think USS Newport News with Mount 51 still there. New construction; the Iowas were wore out even @1990 or so.
Why stop there with basically a Long Beach or Virginia hull with the capability to carry a few H-60 birds and a metric butt ton of VLS. According to this book, one of the plans coming from Zumwalt's BuShips office was a proposal to basically build a hull the size of the Long Beach or even the Wright class of CVL's, put a flight deck in and planning to carry this beast of an aircraft. Along with SPY-1, AEGIS, H-3/H-60's/V-XX, Mk26, MCLWG, and a slew of other sensors where they could form the center piece of a SAG or ASuW Hunter/Killer convoy escort group. The plan of this was supposed to be called Typhoon Strike Cruiser. However, it was killed off by Ford and Carter administration as the recession of the 1970's couldn't support the costs of that ship (which if I remember right was starting to cost the equivalent to either restarting the Iowa BB's or building a fourth and fifth Nimitz class carrier).
If one is replacing the propulsion machinery, how "worn out" could those hulls be? Certainly the shafts and bearings would be just fine.
The purpose of a man of war is to transport Combat Systems where they need to be to conduct prompt and sustained Combat Operations. The 5" 38s have had no parts support for decades, there's no space belowdecks to refit the 5" 54 (AAA gun anyway, poorly suited to NGFS) and there's even less parts support for the 16" 50s. A brand-new 6"50 or 8"55 triple mounted would do everything the 16" rifles would with less recoil stress on the hull. VLS would handle why ships have 5" guns (AAA) just as well and give long-range interdiction capability.
Yep...and we used to luagh ourselves silly about how they had to sit through indoc from a Commisar before they could do their military duty or training. Guess what? Instead of them adopting our ways, we've adopted theirs, as they disgard them (should be a clue, there, Adm R)...BTW, LT B, tomorrow is "every other" Saturday....
Alles klar, Herr Kommisar?
More than one person here as well as I myself have mentioned a heavy cruiser with tripple 8in turrets. That would work great.
We need Jobs right. Well id be willing to lend money from my tiny check to revitalise the Iowas or build a Des Moines MKII.
Or Maybe we could build a new class of battleships made mainly for NGFS. One of the biggest cost on manning was the age of the ships and systems themselves. What would it take to make a ship capable of doing 28-30kts having atleast 2 tripple 8in turrets Good armor and alot of CIWS and AA. Nuke powered, able to launch a good load of TLAM's?
Licence to build some Absolons add a couple burkes or a tico and you have a safe bet for someone having the worst day of their life when the Navy/Marine Corps show up.
<span>They ought to rename one of the Kirovs after that guy.</span>
we called em the "Death Stars" with ships recce... in the old day
Even that.
Women in training to go on submarines. No need to rush into the Newsweek cover story phase any earlier than necessary.
We don't and we don't. At least until the Transpacific War starts, or is seen as inevitable.
There is a lesbian black man?
The Australian Democrats actually ran a one legged lesbian as head of their Victorian senate ticket in the election in which they had their heads so far up their PC rears that they imploded and ceased to have any parliamentary representation.
You would have to do more than replace the boilers with one reactor. First, you would need at least two for redundency. Second, the engine room would have to be replaced because reactor steam plants use saturated steam, not the superheated steam that is usually found in a boiler fed engineroom.
Now, replace two turrets with VLS, how many cells would that give you? (I'm asking because I'm not a weapons type and don't know). What would you do with the rest of the space the turrets formally occupied? As far as I know VLS cannot be reloaded at sea (see above disclamer). The shell storage and magazines would be great for missle storage, if you could find a way to reload.
I might just work my way over there. I have since moved over to the other side of the bay, but it will be good to see everybody as I am getting short and should be out of the area for the next year or so starting in October. I'll talk to the spousal unit and see if she wants to come as well. I suspect that it is WAY too early for her.
CAGN or CGN at $8B per. That is why the CG(X) program is no longer in existence.
As a card carrying member of the AEGIS mafia, this warms my heart. I want! Now where did I put my DDG(X) brief?
"Ahh, it reminds me of the heady days of heterosexuality and meritocracy!"
Opportunity comes on it's schedule....not hers! LOL! Hope to see you there.
nav historian: worn out by the 90's??????
please quote chapter and verse (keep in mind that i walked the decks as a sandcrab o two of them in the 80's)
C
Should be there. She said she wants to come too. "Just wake me up." Hah! Easier said than done. :)
URR: during the reactivations two of the 5" 38 mounts were removed on each side of the "wagons"
also can you see the current bunch giving up 6 knots off of the top end on a "warship"
C
3364: go to one of the ships. walk the decks. once you stand on the fantail of one of them its obvious that there is more room for vls cells back there without removing turret 3 than the entire fleet carries in a war load out now.
keep the big guns on board, its a fierce factor thing. (impresses the wogs when the ship makes port calls you know.)
C
I would rather drop $8 billion on a legitimate cruiser than $20+ billion on 12 useless LCSs....and yes, that is what twelve stinking LCs are going to end up costing us. Anyone who thinks they and their modules will be less is certifiably insane.
pk,
I could see a top speed in the 30 knot range being acceptable. Yes, two of the 5"/38s did get taken, you are correct, so my assertion should be removal of two mounts per side, and replacement of two mounts with 5"/62 mounts.
A large number of reactors from the retired 688-class SSNs are available, would two of these fit into the hull of an Iowa in place of the eight fire rooms taken up by the B&W M-types?
<span>pk,
I could see a top speed in the 30 knot range being acceptable. Yes, two of the 5"/38s did get taken, you are correct, so my assertion should be removal of one mount per side, and replacement of two mounts with 5"/62 mounts.
A large number of reactors from the retired 688-class SSNs are available, would two of these fit into the hull of an Iowa in place of the eight fire rooms taken up by the B&W M-types?</span>
james and friends:
keep in mind the following facts. the iowa class was built to withstand 2750# shells comming in at ~2800 feet per second. i don't think that they ever had to actually withstand that but there were several instances where AIRCRAFT that weighed a couple of tons or more with a 2000# bomp gave it a real MILITARY try. there is one important picture in existance showing a kamikazi about 100' from one of the iowas' headed into the side of the ship. about 40 years later i went to that area of that ship and could find NO evidence of damage or repaired damage.
so what do you think that modern ship missiles could do to one of those old monsters. weighing what at impact 350#? and going at what 400 MPH?
C
urr: submarine reactors and plants are rated > 25,000 hp per shaft.
battleships are 4 screws at 55,000 hp each.
C
True, but the Iowas could reach near 28 knots on only four boilers. The landing of two of the 16:/50 turrets and the 5"38s would reduce weight topside, no? So 30 knots on two S6G reactors? If not, what about the plants in the Virginias?
urr:
i don't remember the iowas having 8 boilers. they had weird compartmentalizaion in the citidel. the water tight bulkheads were athwartships but none fore and aft. however the compartments, boilder and engine rooms, were only about 2/3 the width of the ship remember those people were concerned totally with list. it was genrally accepted that if they got to six and one half degrees they would capsize.
the rest of the width was taken up by the many compartments of the torpedo/mine defense which was in turn cross connected with and to the counter ballast and list control system.
this system was in fact at least half of the numbered compartments of the ship. there was a large passageway that ran from the aft part of number 2 turret barbett to the forward part of number 3 turret barbett (called broadway)with water tight hatches at each bulkhead.
this passage way was specifically for removing machinery from the firerooms and engine rooms for work. attached to the bulkheads of this passageway were the electric controls for the counterflooding system which had a number of very large pumps and about 300 electropneumatic valves.
c
pk,
I believe the Iowas had 8 of the 600-pound M-type boilers, each tied to its own engine room. In this fantasy refit, the compartmentalization of the Iowa hull would be extensively modified. Which it could certainly be.
Aircraft are not armor-piercing shells. I'm willing to bet money the bombs carried by the kamikazees were general-purpose high-explosive bombs.
Also note that both the Yamato and the Musashi (both with thicker armor than an Iowa) were sunk by propellor-driven aircraft using "dumb" bombs and torpedoes.
Also also note that weapon designers faced the same sort of challenges with respect to tanks, and one of their solutions was the top-attack munition. Given battleships in commission, how long before someone remembers that, and applies it to anti-ship munitions? All that armor won't do you much good there. :)
There's a reason that no one uses battleships any more. Yes, they're powerful, but they're also bloody expensive.
Casey,
Many of the kamikaze carried 14" AP projectiles, modified with fins. Battleships in the traditional sense may be passe, but the firepower such a sturdy platform brings has a million and one uses.
With reduced crews required for a different configuration, the cost to operate may be quite a bit less than advertised.
This is a fun and interesting excercise but without some sanity somewhere in the Navy, Congress, and one two player left in the Defense Industry, it is just another wet dream.
We can't rehab a battleship, majestic as it may be, because we can't get a 4,000 ton shiny coastal fisheries patrol frigate vessel done in ten years in an operational sense for less than a billion dollars. The Environmental Impact Study would take 3 years and cost 150 mil to rehab an Iowa.
The money we've spent on the F35 could have purchased a 300 ship sensible navy - or certainly put a dent in it. Want to puke over sunk costs on the DDx? How about JSF? Optical Recutimitis. Comanche, EFV, A12 (the slow one), FCS, etc.
Someone needs to pull up Phib's posts over the years of evolutionary -v- revolutionary or one day our kids will be fighting with dusted off museum ships.
Maybe the Porch can come up with it's own version of Crowd Sourcing, call it Porch Sourcing or Bureau Salamander of something (initials are good, eh?). You could go from back of the napkin to conceptual studies for short dollars requiring short dollars. You might be so successful that there would be a hostile yet profitable takover by large Aquisition Ships Systems Engineering Syndicate. If you can't beat 'em, at least get bought out by them.
/rant /vent
Time to go camping in the rain.
Casey:
I believe the "top attack munition" of choice historically has been a BB main gun shell fired at maximum elevation (46 degrees). Bismark's comes to mind, but remember it only worked on Hood because "budgetary considerations" deferred the installation of the applicable shipalt developed from analysis of Jutland's problem with "something wrong with our bloody ships today." I'm pretty sure the Iowas had that little design hiccup ironed out before the broke the first champagne bottle on the first bow in the series. The Arizona's mode of demise might have put a little oomph behind the effort. I would hope.
When sinking BB's, it is generally considered more efficacious to let water in the bottom with a torpedo rather than letting air out the top with shell holes or bomb holes. Sort of the point of the whole VT (fixed wing torpedo bomber aircraft) concept. Archerfish (God rest her heroic remains) provided the proof of concept very nicely.
It might be wise to assume that the Exploder in current use might be a bit more advanced than the ones in the Mk 13/14/15 (air/sub/surface launched) torpedo series used in the forties. Not that Enright cared.
We can rehab a battleship. We just won't. We could do it for far less than we estimate, too, but we won't do that either.
Right back to my original comment. The Russkies can refit a trio of Kirovs, nearing or exceeing 30 years old, and expect an additional 25 years of service out of them.
We wouldn't refit five Ticos, three not yet 20 years in service, and instead decommed and disposed of them. Shame. Shame on us.
We could but we won't is absolutely correct.
There is a lot of things we could do but never do. Instead, Lucy repeats pulling away the football time after time while we THIS time might bring a different result.
the guy that ran the relief valve section that overhauled, rebuilt the safeties sat right beside my desk. i believe that the first safety lifted at 427 and reseated at 425. that one fed steam to the superheater safety and caused it to lift sympathetically. the next one would gave lifted about 430 with a reseat at about 428.....
maybe sid has a copy of the ships information book and can settle this as it was quite a while ago.
it did make me wonder at the time as yes they were touted as 600# plants but the bottom blow valves were rated at 450# and they have to be good for the same poundage as the safeties.
C
about 50% of the WWII compliment was anti aircraft gun crews. they went away in the reactivations. however the airdales would probably want to have an enhanced group on the ship if it ever happened.
URR: the first reactivation (New Jersey) went along quite well until the electricians brought up the facts that the 110 volt wireing and associated light fixtures were 40 years old and falling apart. also there was a little matter of Noo Smoke Cable.
it took about two months for the electricians to stop being treated like skunks in morning mass at the scheldule meetings and then there was an asbeostos scare (that had been removed at an earlier reactivation but it always rears its ugly head in these projects.).
its stuff like that that gets these projects.
C
That kind of thing should not be as big a problem, considering they were in commission fewer than twenty years ago. And even if it is, I find it very tough to think that we would spend several billion on light fixtures or asbestos removal.
20-25K tons, brand new everything, ARMOR, main battery 6 or 8" guns, VLS, SH-60B Armed Helo. Almost everything for my Nuke Gun Cruiser is off-the-shelf. 16" guns give @3-5 miles more range and guns aren't much good past 20-25 miles anyway. 25-75 miles: SH-60B Armed Helo with Mk 46s or Hellfires. 76+ miles: VLS. AAA: SM-2 or SM-2ER. NGFS, power projection, and more for not much over 1/2 the cost of an LCS. That AND ASW capability built in. So much of it being off-the-shelf is probably why it will never be built, though.
NH,
You have some homework to do on NGF ballistics. Modern projectile/propellant design (ERFB/BB and super-perf propellant granules), capped with course correction fuzes, can double the range and reduce PEr exponentially.
And who makes armored plate these days?
it sould be ultimate "off the shelf" warship, and USN wants something entirely new, like Zumwalt and LCS...
Ahh yes. Entirely new. Revolutionary v evolutionary? Transformational, even?
Super. Our track record with those is so impressive, let's try another one! >:o
New *manufacture* not new *technology*. Will be about as cutting edge technology as a 1948 John Deere tractor.
Roger, but who makes armored plate?
Several farms here run 1940s-50s John Deeres. They are rugged, reliable, take a lot of abuse and are easy to operate/repair.
Funny, that.
'50s Fords and the occasional Deutch are not uncommon either, but I have to admit ..... I have a 2005 Kubota.
The Kobota is probably better for the rugged mountains of Louisiana. :-P
manufacture of armor plate is not the big thing that it used to be.
the modern continuous casting process takes pure iron, mixes the alloying elements into it then pours that into an adjustable mold that forms a strip of pretty much infinite length.
i saw one in operation at ontario california (long since shut down for air quality reasons) that could do a maximum of 12" thick and 86" wide. the casting rate was ~675 tons per hour and they did shut down for one shift every sunday evening for maintainence purposes. any thing wider can be made of strips welded together with joints resembling pipe joints.
they cut the strip at about 40 foot intervals because that was the size that the cranes could handle best.
for those that turn up their nose at 12" plate keep in mind the following things. side armor was usually installed at an angle which made it more effective against incomming ordinance from other ships.
high angle incomming was a different deal.
C
I have a question for UltimaRatioRegis ....
Are you serious in thinking about a return of the Iowa Class? Or are you simply musing about past history, operating inside the realm of what coulda-been/shoulda-been?
I've watched the debates about the Iowa Class ebb and flow for thirteen years on other Internet forums, and have long believed these ships could be very useful additions to the US Navy's fleet, assuming the money and the commitment could be found to properly support them.
However, finding that money and that commitment is a tall order indeed, especially if one is totally realistic concerning how much it would cost.
In my humble opinion, the greatest obstacle to funding the Iowas --- not to say there aren't several obstacles, realistically speaking --- is that there is a widespread but unpublicized opinion within the US Navy and within DOD's senior leadership that a large-scale amphibious assault against a capable adversary will never occur again.
Moreover, there is a growing belief within other circles in DOD and within the Congress that the occurrence of a large-scale conventional land war --- including a land war which might happen to have a substantial seaward flank in which high-volume naval surface fires might prove very useful --- is also an improbable event.
What I am saying is this: before one can get to the point of advocating that this-or-that kind of modification would make the Iowa Class a useful platform once again, one has to get to first base in justifying the need.
And first base, in this particular case, is convincing the people with the purse strings that a war which requires some substantial combination of naval surface fire support and/or naval surface strike is a contingency which we ought to be preparing for.
gb:
the last battleships were on the sides what for a better name the modern nitwits would call quintbottoms. that is five (at least) intervals of side plates (one of which was the side armor) with alternatively flooded compartments just to give you guys heartburn.
best try an underrunner (with an exploder that actually works) there its only three layers of plates and tanks before you get to bilge paint. of course figuring depth is another problem.
iowas were not made to sink easily.
C
Remember, it took about 18 torps to sink Yamato... Iowa is not much worse in the underwater defence, i think.
Well said. THIS is why I am so on-board with a true LCS, a battle cruiser. Works for the interdiction role, NGFS, and as a bonus we have LAMPS through the SH-60B Armed Helo det.
We thought those same things just after both WW1 and WW2 then after Korea remembered with the help of the russians who when realising America was serious that we werent going to have another war in europe ad yes we would kill EVERYONE. Just to prove that point went to providing money, intell and weapons to our lower teir enemies. Which has carried on to today. China continues this today it feeds our enemies weapons and money as does russia. China has added another wrinkle to the equasion. Monetary warfare. China and others will not attack tempt the US until they have the advantage. Why build a huge fleet when you just have to have enough of a fleet to stop peirs?
The united states is for all purposes a island nation. Add in that fleet take our border down to Panama in a worst case senario and along with Canada as long as the US has a strong Navy we could hold agaisnt anything.
Oh one more wrinkle..........we must control space now also.
Imagine how fast the Libyan campain would have ended if a Advanced Iowas showed up with a Marine corps MEU? Then of course the part we have a problem with.....DONT STAY TO HELP!!
Most people and cities are near the coast line. Those who can control the coast can win.
Modern ships like CG DDG LHD have .5 inch thick steel hull.
DDG-1000 has much of her hull ~2.5 inches steel.
That's both good and bad. Down side is that USS ZUMWALT will not be a Green ship, since it will take uncountable refuelings over the life of that destroyer to push 15,000 tons (partly submerged) thru the water at typical DD / DDG speeds.
DDG-1000 has a small crew about this size of new Coast Guard NSC cutters, however, the TOtal COst of Ownership for 30 years must take into account giant fuel bills.
I have to say I tend to agree with Scott. Let us remember that it took just two ancient torpedos to sink the Belgrano which was, admittedly, a light cruiser but one with an armor belt I don't think exists on any extant warships and 2 DD escorts. Before advocating building more and larger and more capable stand alone units one should really study the current and projected ASW situation. The only chance a CVN has it's supporting units and I&W. A look through the relatively recent past will reveal how far the DC standards have slipped from the time of war. If one wants missiles one can't do better than the SSGN. If one advocates an LCS type than one should really study the loss of the Korean corvette Cheonan to a torpedo in recent years and the loss of other light warships/PC due to a surprise attack at very close range.
We would read the National Strategy of the US and then the Maritime Strategy and figure out our place in both and what we could expect in resources. I think one of the impediments the navy has in approaching the $thrones is in selling a serious argument that surface ships are survivable in an ASW fight short of coordinated ASW and we all agree that the assets to perform that are rather hollow these days and unlike SWOS who can sincerely believe that there is such a thing as six number one priorities, others know better.
URR,
Some of those you mention were truly elegant and powerful warships but they had insurmountable problems that could not really be overcome if one expected to continue to use them in a naval war environment against a like power and I think we'd all agree that it does not pay to underestimate any potential enemy or class of enemy. When I worked with the CGNs they were in escort mode to a flagship in a bad place and did very well, I thought. When I worked with them in another role they were AB but excluded from closing within X of the datum because they were so noisy they'd give the game away. If I worked with Aegis it was lost in the noise of working with the CVN they escorted but I have heard that the five were in need of a virtual rebuild and not worth the cost of repairing. [That's one I've always had trouble accepting even though I've been slammed with it time and again by the beancounters], ie, rather than give you $4400 to fix the transmission on that truck, send it to DRMO and suck it up since it will never be replaced and we'll never authorize a USN number even if you do find an adequate replacement that is within your TOE allowance. One of those early Aegis developed severe cracks just rounding the Horn on its way to San Diego from the builder. It went so far south for UNITAS and continued on around with the CO driving it at full speed in heavy seas until the cracks started to manifest themselves in scary places.
Bistro,
The cost of a hull and propulsion system represents what percentage of a ship's cost? The CGNs were at just half their service lives, and were useful hulls for myriad tasks. Perhaps not those they were intended for, but neither were the Gearings when rebuilt for ASW.
Could a number of those first five TICOS been refitted with 2 Mk 71 8" guns to be used in a NGFS role? If the Mk 26 launchers could not be replaced by VLS, could the system be removed altogether and the space be used for additional 8" magazines, what a hell of a platform that could have been.
As for the rebuild issue, if a capital ship is in need of virtual rebuild after 15-18 years of service because she is so worn out, that speaks to massive problems with the quality of the original build/design or the maintenance performed by the crew and yards. Even so, I tend to agree with you. The "virtual rebuild" versus the cost to replace would not be close. The empty ocean where a CG should have been costs even more.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Des_Moines_class_cruiser
Take that. Remove the aft turret add VLS and a Flight Pad. Remove the 5in guns add 2-4 57mm (or phalanx-R2D2) for CIWS. Add 2 ESSM launchers for farther out AA. Remove the two Forward turrets replace em with 2 twin mounted http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8%22/55_caliber_Mark_71_gun (capable of launching twelve rounds a minute compared to the AGS 10-oh yea th rounds can be around 260lbs compared to the 75 of a 5in and the slighty heavier 6.5in (155mm) AGS.
Hell what what the Zumwalt is is a Slightly more powerful http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Providence_class_cruiser with more missiles because of VLS.
Either nuke powered or Conventional and you have one hell of a mean NGFS vessel and one that can also constribut way above its displacment size for Close in AA and area defense,
Guest, the Navy hasn't put that thick a hull plate on since the days of WW2. The ONLY place you'll find that thickness of steel is the rudder struts and the bow stem. Even the "keel" isn't very thick. I think the thickest plate on a CG is .75 in just one "strake" (strakes are the plates that are set up in lines running from the keel to the main deck. A strake would be the one closet to centerline). I find it very hard to believe that there would be 2.5" plate in any location other than those mentioned.
I loved the Kidd Class and they were not even ours. Built on a DD hull they managed to serve very usefully as AAW escorts and even, if they tried, ASW escorts. As I understand it and I admit it is an imperfect understanding, the first Tico class ships that were retired were retired due basically to shoddy construction, cracks and faulty welds. IIRC these ships were delivered roughly about the same time our premier yards were taken to task for their shoddy production practices delivering Level A welds in nuclear submarines to the extent that much of the welding needed to be redone and as mere Level I (at best) the cruisers were delivered in a more abject state, much as the LCS and LPD have been delivered to date. As you said, their life span should have been a minimum of 30 years and the people were robbed when NAVSEA and SUPSHIPS accepted badly built warships but quality matters. A lot. Somebody like Sal can probably find data to support either your point or mine but I'd look at the maintenance history of a specific warship/contrast with class standard and make the budget call that one was the equivalent of a hanger queen (dispose of) or one is OK and in the main sequence. A ship that spends the bulk of time with a lot of C4 or C3 CASREPS is actually not a net positive contributor and actually sucks resources away from those that are healthy.
About the only time that I can recall the 5"54 firing in anger was NIMBLE ARCHER and I don't think 5 vs 8 inch made any difference. For 60 years the issue of Shore Bombardment has not reared it's fun head other than at places like San Clemente Island. Some ROC&POE are unclassified. I'd be interested in what the ROC&POE has to say about any class of modern warship design. By the evidence invested in the LCS and LPD there is zero requirement anymore to field warships with shore bombardment or self defense capabilities. On the other hand I think that is due to the recognition that the CVN aircraft are going to devestate any beach defenses/inland defenses with precision guided munitions long before the first LCAC reaches the beach and by extension they'll clear the route to and vicinity of any LZ that Marine Aviation is going to land in.
Mostly I think it is because they have a more sane contracting office that pays the shipyard workers roughly a $/hour and does not tolerate the shipyard charging the navy $125/hour for firewatch guys who don't speak Russian whenever there is hotwork involved.
Perhaps regrettably, they get what they pay for.
8in guns carry ALOT more of a punch than the 5in or 6.5 of the AGS. They are far cheaper and can be made just as acurate as any JDAM from a F-18 or F-35 with the new smart rounds.
Add to that the ever increasing power and ability of SAMs and other surface to air systems and it looks like the carrier is really going to have its work cut out for it in the future.
"By the evidence invested in the LCS and LPD there is zero requirement anymore to field warships with shore bombardment or self defense capabilities"
BOTH of which are evidence the Navy doesnt know what to build as far as ships anymore.
The LCS AND LPD are extemely limited in usefulness. The new LPD's are so big and expensive that they require alot of protection and due to new regulations by the navy WILL NOT GET CLOSER THAN 25knmi to shore. LCS can get near shore is indeed expected to.......just as long as no one wants to sink it.
The Marines are constantly ready to fight a War. They need a ship that can provide NGFS. THEY are the ones who want it. Seems they arent just accepting that war wont involve terrorist anymore.
Many countries are going for many small Heavily armed combatants like the Chinese FACs. Against that threat a Carrier battle group is in deap shit and a LCS squad is F**ked.
Point is when it is needed it is there.
Having to wait for the Navy to bring in Carriers to strike the beach, the airforce to bring in B-1, B-2's set up all the air assets EWACS, Refuelers etc. Then take out the AA systems close to the shore while worrying about enemy fighters.......
Or you could have dedicated heavy cruisers built to destroy all targets on the shore and then give support and added AA and ASuW for the MEU while its fighters protect the skys and look for more targets means you wouldnt have to wait and could begin operations as needed not wait a month for everything to be inplace. Then after the enemy has take careful measure to fortify and beef up the defenses along his coast line or at key points you have a harder job.
Im sure others can give you better reasoning but i have work at 530 and i need to hit the hay.
I no longer know their names the C801 and C802 ASCM truck launched SSM that can set up anywhere at all and blow any ship out of the water without warning (launch on visual bearing home on radar target). I liked the SSN2. I never treat these as ATG and its predecessor did (like nukes) but rather as ripple fire or TOT missile fire that overwhelms even a real ASCM defense. Let us agree that the LCS has zed missile defense and the LPD has zed missile defense. Fire 4 missiles at each at roughly the same time. Reason enough to stay 25 miles offshore. I think I would be utterly horrified to read the navy's own analysis of an LPD survival rating against a hostile shore landing.
"<span>I loved the Kidd Class and they were not even ours. Built on a DD hull they managed to serve very usefully as AAW escorts and even, if they tried, ASW escorts. As I understand it and I admit it is an imperfect understanding, the first Tico class ships that were retired were retired due basically to shoddy construction, cracks and faulty welds."</span>
<span></span>
<span>Not true, Bistro. The Flight1 CG-47 were decomm'd because it would cost too much to upgrade to VLS... Cracks are simply poor design. Most fractures I've worked (the vast majorite of them) occur near stress points in framing members, say where a longitudinal member crosses a transverse.</span>
Bistro,
The 203mm (8") is far more capable than a 5" in the role of NGF and ASuW. A 260+ pound projectile does exponentially more damage than a 70 pound projo.
As for the survival of an LPD, the ASGMs you talk about are indeed bad boys. But will they automatically sink everything they hit? Especially a 20,000 ton vessel? Dunno. Israel had corvette Hanit back in service inside of a month, and she was a much smaller vessel that took a C-802.
Byron, the DDG-1000 outter hull thickness to roughly 2.5 inches steel all alongside the new periferal VLS (PVLS) launchers. It's really a great design idea ! amazing, huh ?
Closest I can think of is a half Armenian one, but I'm more than a little unclear of the taxonomy and boundary criteria of the whole GLBT think.
(Sigh) Doubtless we will all be more aquainted with the dogma as we move further into the thicket.
Ack! "Acquainted".
A symptom of the disease, not the disease. So there was no real reason we had to waste these nearly-new $1.2B warships. Except inefficiency and stupidity.
And we currently have a lack of hulls to meet the stated goals of our Maritime Strategy.
F*cking brilliant. We ARE diverse, though. And gay-friendly. That ought to be worth the combat power of half a dozen capital units, right?
You make my point. The LPD's are fine china pretty to look at and are good for a very limited amount of options.
Radar and tracking systems along with laser, Railgun tech along with other technology is making the idea of attacking a enemy with 1,000,000 missiles a bad equation. Hell im starting to wonder if you might see Strategic bomber groups in the near future flying in close like they used to blasting away with EW and Directed energy weapons in pods.
Laser technology is moveing FAST most people dont realise how fast.
OKay deep breath folks.
Lets take a look at what the Kirov class of heavy guided missile cruisers were designed for, before we start to argue about what we should build in response.
If anyone has read Admiral of the Fleet Sergy Gorhkov's articles in the Soviet Navy's version of Proceedings and read some of testamony, let alone a couple of his books (which are very hard to find outside of Europe or Russia now). Following the Cuban Missile Crisis, he saw the Soviet Navy at the time be defeated by the American Navy. The primary reason was that the Soviet Navy wasn't a blue water navy and that the Soviets didn't have an effective counter to the American/NATO carrier battle groups. So what to do about that? Well he emphaiszed that they have large and long ranged submarines that could be used to hunt/kill the Carriers, he also saw the need of heavy surface groups to either go ripping through the convoys or represent another demision in attacking the NATO carriers. So they started with the Kynda class of Guided Missile Cruisers, which did well but required other ships to escort them into range to use thier Shaddock missiles (SS-N-3's). So if you had a ship that could form the center peice of a carrier killing surface action group, it should be able to be a flagship and be multi-roled. That is what lead to the Kirov class. It was envisioned as being the center piece of a SAG that could also be composed of Slava class, Kynda Class, Kresta I class cruisers that could be the surface element of trying to kill a NATO carrier group. If you read Milan Vego's book "Soviet Naval Tactics", and read the chapter about how the Soviets did the Math on carrier kiling, the Kirovs were almost considered a constant on how many surface to surface anti-shipping missiles were needed. Combine that with either an Echo, Juliet, Charlie and Oscar class guided missile submarines and two or more Soviet Naval Avation bomber Regiements with either AS-5, AS-4, AS-6. Then things would have looked grim a NATO carrier group caught in this little trap. That is what let to AEGIS being developed tohelp deal with all that hate. Gorshkov also saw that one of the other ways to tie down NATO carriers was through the use of surface raiders to harass the NATO convoys going from the North American factories and warehouses to the European Battlefields, then it would have given his other naval units a chance to gain and hold the intiative in the Norwegian Seas or even the Med. Think about the Pacific and if there was a Kirov operating in the waters between Hawaiian/Guam shipping lanes going to Korea and consider how many Pac Fleet carriers would not be near the Korean Coast providing air support to the ground war while they were busy hunting this raider?
<cont></cont>
<cont>
Okay so now that we have the role defined, remember when the Kirovs showed up it was one of the primary reasons why Lehman wanted to bring the Iowa's back into the fleet. To provide a counter piece to those heavy units of the Soviet Navy and show Congress that we had units that could compete with those ships. From what I have read in books about both Lehman, US Navy crusier design and general war figthing theory coming from that portion of OpNav; there was a strong push to revive the strike cruiser concept. There was a couple of thoughts of converting the Long Beach or the California class cruisers partially as proof of concept before either going for new build or converting the Virginia class completely. The hold up was rising defense budget costs and rising ship building costs at the time.
So with all that being said, a critical eye needs be done about the Kirov class of cruisers. Realistically it is a Jack of All trades, but a master of none. It is capable of hunting surface ships, but needs to depend on other units for OTH targeting. It has a great SAM missile in a navalized version of the SA-10/S-300, but the ground base version of the missile has advance about four major generations since the S-300V1 was introduced back in the early 1984. So though they are deadly SAMs, the ECM systems have jumped radically since they were introduced. It has the ability to be the center piece as well for an ASW hunter/killer group, but its own ASW sensor suite is early 1970's generation and again would need to depend on its own helo's or other units at the outer convergance zone for locating hostile submarines. So to upgrade all four of the ships in this class so they can compete in a 21st century naval combat against 4.5 gen fighter bombers, 5th gen submarines and advance generation EW battlefield, I would almost wonder if the Russians will run of out cash before the first ship leaves the dry-dock.
Last deep thought about this is ask yourself a serious question as to why are they trying to upgrade a 20+yr old hull instead of just going with a new build? Are they hurting that much in thier own shipbuilidng industry as the US is?</cont>
Or did they realize that upgrading existing unjts, building, learning, EVOLVING, etc is the way to go. Maybe they learned from us that transormational planning and building is not all that positive. If they have political officers onboard pushing their equivalent of diversity, then we know they are as hosed up as we are.
Byron,
My understanding was that the fuel tanks were cracked and leaking as was much of the associated piping. The mast on one had cracked and oddly enough, we never bought the missiles in numbers to arm all the ships that had missile tubes. Missiles were cross decked.
http://www.monclercheapja.com
The "Moncler Online Shop" actually are a big strike within the marketplace. It arrives acquiring a two-way zip together acquiring a detachable drawstring hood. The highest arm options a wise flap pocket together experiencing a felted logo. The hem too characteristics a drawstring as well as sleeve cuffs show up having a ruched elastic snap. The materials of quilted Moncler jackets is 1% polyurethane and 99% polyamide. They have a very 100% authentic directly down filling and 100% polyamide lining. These Moncler Online Shop is mostly donned comfortably on bare pores and pores and skin likewise and very feel immensely comfy and delicate.
Post a Comment