Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: zuluhour

It reminds me more of the Merrimack.

Yes, that would be the Virginia to you.

ORIGINAL: dr.hal

It brings one back to the days of ram bows at the turn of the last century.

Or these

Can confirm, very ugly.

I notice the crew carried is about half that of the preceding Burke class DDGs.

I truly worry about the damage control abilities when they start cutting bodies like that.

ORIGINAL: Mundy

I notice the crew carried is about half that of the preceding Burke class DDGs.

I truly worry about the damage control abilities when they start cutting bodies like that.

It's been discussed for decades. Not only DC but also battlestations fatigue, cleaning and preservation, food service, etc. But the life-cycle cost of the crew far exceeds the procurement cost of the ship. Over 1/8 of the DoD budget is now health-care costs for example. Getting crew sizes down is not optional.

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: Mundy

I notice the crew carried is about half that of the preceding Burke class DDGs.

I truly worry about the damage control abilities when they start cutting bodies like that.

It's been discussed for decades. Not only DC but also battlestations fatigue, cleaning and preservation, food service, etc. But the life-cycle cost of the crew far exceeds the procurement cost of the ship. Over 1/8 of the DoD budget is now health-care costs for example. Getting crew sizes down is not optional.

On top of that there's the fact that modern munitions aren't going to leave much of a ship left to perform damage control on. The Exocet didn't even need to explode to put ships out of action, or even sink them, and technology has advanced 35 years since the Exocet first appeared.

It's my own view that we're going to see a major shift in naval combat in the next few decades. It was heavy guns and armor in the early 20th century, and it was aircraft and aircraft carriers in the mid 20th century. With missile and drone technology getting better and better, I think they'll be the next winning combination.

I think submersibles are the solution for now. No need to go deep, 50m is maybe enough, but air and sea surface is very unhealthy.

What I struggle to understand is why there are so few CIWS on the current USN CVs. Missiles are pretty much the only credible threat to these things and that can be countered with just, *more* CIWS. Feels a lot like WWII BBs, oh, air craft, yeah, we need more AAA, didn't see that coming...

ORIGINAL: Dili

I think submersibles are the solution for now. No need to go deep, 50m is maybe enough, but air and sea surface is very unhealthy.

Never happen. Submerging to any depth is 10x as hard as floating. Most of your effort is just keeping the sea from killing you; the enemy is secondary afterwards. Going deep is actually pretty easy after you dive at all. Hardened systems are much less of an engineering challenge than the dive itself. And weapon deployment is very difficult through a pressure hull, as are ordnance volumes.

Subs, even unmanned subs, will be part of the mix, but not the core. Nobody has that kind of money.

For the ex USN types here. I have seen posts on various fora where the name Zumwalt produces various levels of apoplexy and ire amongst posters.

Never really been able to work out why?

It's probably worse with the LCS.

ORIGINAL: Jellicoe

For the ex USN types here. I have seen posts on various fora where the name Zumwalt produces various levels of apoplexy and ire amongst posters.

Never really been able to work out why?

Elmo Zumwalt was a transitional figure. Few men have brought as much change to the USN as he. Change almost always begets controversy. He certainly did. Those of us that served through the period of his stewardship can tell many stories , and share many experiences. He saw the end of many WW2 practices , and ships. Even more dramatic was he served during the transition from a Draftee based service to a all volunteer service. Yes the USN rarely has drafted people , if was heavily influenced by the draft. Some fine sailors volunteered for the Navy to avoid the Army , especially during Vietnam. Zumwalt served in a period of great austerity and extreme personnel shortages. He tried to bridge the gap between officer and enlisted (it's said that it was unfortunate that he didn't ask the enlisted). Shortly before his death I got to ask him a few questions and touched on this, particularly the retirement of the beloved "Cracker Jacks". "What were you thinking?" He shrugged and looked down , sheepishly grinning and said "I thought I was doing the right thing. Everybody makes mistakes. I really SHOULD have asked them (the enlisted sailors)".

I don't know anyone that really disliked the Admiral with the bushy eyebrows. BUT SOME of his idea's and policies...........[:D]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: Dili

I think submersibles are the solution for now. No need to go deep, 50m is maybe enough, but air and sea surface is very unhealthy.

Never happen. Submerging to any depth is 10x as hard as floating. Most of your effort is just keeping the sea from killing you; the enemy is secondary afterwards. Going deep is actually pretty easy after you dive at all. Hardened systems are much less of an engineering challenge than the dive itself. And weapon deployment is very difficult through a pressure hull, as are ordnance volumes.

Subs, even unmanned subs, will be part of the mix, but not the core. Nobody has that kind of money.

This actually in part answers my unasked question because I thought along the same lines as Dili.

But I still wonder if the effort to hide that ship from radar is worth the cost in seaworthiness and internal spaces. Also that thing truly looks like a bitch to handle in heavy seas (probably a non-issue with modern steering aids, but still).

What exactly IS the advantage of such a vessle that cannot be handled by either a submarine (stealth) or a more conventional ship design (show flag and sea(lane) control)?

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: Dili

I think submersibles are the solution for now. No need to go deep, 50m is maybe enough, but air and sea surface is very unhealthy.

Never happen. Submerging to any depth is 10x as hard as floating. Most of your effort is just keeping the sea from killing you; the enemy is secondary afterwards. Going deep is actually pretty easy after you dive at all. Hardened systems are much less of an engineering challenge than the dive itself. And weapon deployment is very difficult through a pressure hull, as are ordnance volumes.

Subs, even unmanned subs, will be part of the mix, but not the core. Nobody has that kind of money.

This actually in part answers my unasked question because I thought along the same lines as Dili.

But I still wonder if the effort to hide that ship from radar is worth the cost in seaworthiness and internal spaces. Also that thing truly looks like a bitch to handle in heavy seas (probably a non-issue with modern steering aids, but still).

What exactly IS the advantage of such a vessle that cannot be handled by either a submarine (stealth) or a more conventional ship design (show flag and sea(lane) control)?

I think it's a case of "splitting the middle". A submarine is generally more expensive than a surface ship of similar size. A regular warship stands out on a modern RADAR screen like a beacon. This is somewhere in between , while demonstrating new technology. If you want a truly "stealthy" surface ship , a British company a few years ago built a small frigate sized demonstrator , I think it was called "Seawraith". Along with "normal" stealth features , it used a modified "water wash down " system to spray water over itself making the vessel appear to be a small cloud. [X(]

As always , it's "how much can you afford"? [:)]

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: Dili

I think submersibles are the solution for now. No need to go deep, 50m is maybe enough, but air and sea surface is very unhealthy.

Never happen. Submerging to any depth is 10x as hard as floating. Most of your effort is just keeping the sea from killing you; the enemy is secondary afterwards. Going deep is actually pretty easy after you dive at all. Hardened systems are much less of an engineering challenge than the dive itself. And weapon deployment is very difficult through a pressure hull, as are ordnance volumes.

Subs, even unmanned subs, will be part of the mix, but not the core. Nobody has that kind of money.

This actually in part answers my unasked question because I thought along the same lines as Dili.

But I still wonder if the effort to hide that ship from radar is worth the cost in seaworthiness and internal spaces. Also that thing truly looks like a bitch to handle in heavy seas (probably a non-issue with modern steering aids, but still).

What exactly IS the advantage of such a vessle that cannot be handled by either a submarine (stealth) or a more conventional ship design (show flag and sea(lane) control)?

The current US doctrine has us fighting less-than-leading-edge adversaries for the most part. For that matter any navy that's even close to the USN is currently a friend or a neutral.

How well this ship hides from radar is a secret. How seaworthy is a secret. I doubt she was built without a lot of basin tests and modeling on seaworthiness. As far as showing the flag (a psychological tactic) telling an adversary there's a ship off their coast, but they can't find her, is pretty darn psychological.

That said ship design and building takes so long that sometimes what gets to sea "solves" a problem that doesn't exist anymore, or has evolved with other tech. The littoral ships might be a better example of that. This ship was a testbed for a bunch of propulsion, C&C, manning, and other concepts. And for that worth building. Since the Navy isn't building any more of them maybe that answers some questions. But that doesn't mean surface ships won't continue to be the backbone of the Navy.

For what it's worth (not much), I suspect the entire craze for "stealth" in naval construction is going to prove to be a colossal waste.... but like the Emperors New Clothes - no one in those circles will say so and be ridiculed.

As for the hull form, they tried it before in the last century (and yes before that too) and as I recall it was abandoned for what became the (now) traditional hull form, because of superior sea-worthiness.

Anyway, my 2c

Like all things , technology will eventually over take technology. What Churchill called "the wizard's war".

One of the things about the Zumwalt is it was designed for a doctrine that the USN no longer follows. Look up "From the Sea". And as well "the Arsenal ship". The theory is that massed cruise missiles could replace CV battle groups. Instead the USN brought back the SSGN in the form of retired "boomers" , former SSBN's with a whole boat load of cruise missiles and a healthy SEAL presence. As I said before , I still see the Zumwalts as a "Technology demonstrator". Part of that is why they have such a tremendous electrical generation capability. It gives them a great growth potential. I full expect to see them refitted with lasers and rail guns at the very least.

SSGN is a move to under the sea level.

In WW2 several countries had or were in way to have at least 100 combat submarines (on top of my head: US, UK, Germany, USSR, Japan ,Italy), and now we are several times more rich. Besides the whole anti air capabilities don't need to be so expensive in a submersible.

Btw AW1Steve interesting idea that ship.

ORIGINAL: Dili

SSGN is a move to under the sea level.

In WW2 several countries had or were in way to have at least 100 combat submarines (on top of my head: US, UK, Germany, USSR, Japan ,Italy), and now we are several times more rich. Besides the whole anti air capabilities don't need to be so expensive in a submersible.

Btw AW1Steve interesting idea that ship.

USN SSGN was only done because we had spare Ohio-class SSBNs with life left in the cores. We would not have purpose-built them. The Soviets did build dedicated SSGNs, primarily the Charlie family, as they were very afraid of the USN carriers. And it's debatable how survivable the Charlies would have been. 688s accompanied CVBGs for a reason. Even on my old pig of an SSBN about a third of the targets generated in off-crew fire control trainer practice were Charlies.

As to cost, the Gato-class came at roughly $2.85 million each in 1940 dollars. Apply whatever inflation escalator you like, but you don't get close to the cost of a Virginia-class SSN. $2.688 billion 2015 dollars. Or ten for $17.6 billion. Numbers vary depending in part on long-lead-time procurement of reactor components and which FY gets them assigned. But whichever number you choose, no navy can afford 100 of them.

A submarine avoids needing to be anti-air to a great extent, although the Soviets experimented with a vertically-firing surface-to-air missile to take out dipping helos. But they also can't fight against air power either. They can sink anything that floats or dives. The third dimension isn't their bailiwick. Nor can they land Marines, evacuate embassies, or do sustained bombing inland. They're good at what they're good at. But you can't build a navy only around subs.

I get that SSGN was because excess numbers of Ohio, but still must be more economical to operate them compared to a surface ship.

I wasn't talking about submarines but a submersible, the ship could get on surface to fight if needed.