it does seem like our naval procurement was somehow taken over by an enemy who threw monkey wrenches in all the right places enough times that we now have a birth dirth of ships and are on a self imposed naval population decline. So weird how we used to make stuff, lots of stuff, and now hardly even have refineries for smelting the ore to make the steel from scratch.
love your articles CDR. keep it up sir.
any interest in comparing WW2 pacific naval theater sub warfare to a current day Taiwan/China/US/allies interaction? have we now become the high technology but low producing side, like Germany and Japan were before the war? what would that mean for attrition over 18-24 months of a struggle when we can't build a sub in under 3-5 years?
LOL! I’m rolling on the floor! However, that is about par for the course with our current NAVSEA! It sure DIDN’T USED TO BE THAT WAY. These guys couldn’t even copy WHAT WE ALREADY HAD . . . and fold it into something THAT ALREADY EXISTED!
I read that the Aussies are buying a dozen Japanese frigates for about $300 mil a copy. That wouldn't be nearly as good as remembering how to build ships ourselves (like the Big Blue Fleet), but it's a plausible short-term solution.
Surface raiders were a failed concept overall. Graf Spee sank nine merchant ships, 50k GRT, before being scuttled. Sure, they tied down RN ships but those RN ships had nothing else to do anyway. Put all that metal into more U Boats…
I think of it more as a problem of The Powers That Be continuing to fight the last war. Obviously, subs were used in WWI, but so were airplanes. But the Gun Club had seniority and all the decision making clout. A really smart person might ask if we haven’t fallen into that same trap.
Alan Gideon: "I think of it more as a problem of The Powers That Be continuing to fight the last war."
Here in the year 2025, 'continuing to fight the last war' means continuing to fight the never-ending Middle East wars at the expense of preparing to fight a future 21st Century war at sea and in the air in the western Pacific.
Yes and no, in as much as it begs the question what could be done with a modern hull and modern diesels if you wanted build something of large displacement and reasonably but not obscenely fast. (And frankly I'm surprised the LCS fuel fraction is as low as it is.)
"The concept of a super-cruiser to counter existing cruisers was hardly new in the late thirties. About a decade before much publicity had been given to a purported French project for a 17,500 ton cruiser killer with eight 12 inch guns..."
When details of the German Deutchsland class pocket battleship first became available in 1929, there was a proposal to rearm U.S. heavy cruisers with twin 10 inch gun turrets in place of their triple 8 inch turrets."
----
What killed a big pursuit in this direction in the early 30's was the still existing treaty restrictions. That tonnage was deemed more valuable in other programs.
Friedman continues with how the concept evolved...
---
"Enemy heavy cruisers were the primary surface threat [carriers] faced, so some kind of cruiser killer was an attractive carrier escort."
"The carrier screening role accounts for the enthusiasm Admiral King [as Commander Aircraft Battle Force at the time] showed for the Alaska project."
---
Adm. King wasn't the only powerful advocate that pushed the Alaska into reality though...
----
"...the Alaskas are usually attributed to President Roosevelt [see the account of his insistence that the CVLs be built] and dismissed as an absurdity and as typical of the effects of amateurism in military procurement."
-----
That derision came from the competition for the resources needed for the then building fast BB's.
Because their top hamper designs were so similiar, its easy to think the Alaskas were actually BB's. But continuing in Friedman's description of the details in design, its shows how they were in fact built like cruisers.
This pic with the Alaska alongside the Missouri also makes the point...
Forget German stuff, just severely update the Baltimore class. Keep the 8 inch guns, replace the other weapons with modern upgrades. Put a nuclear power plant in to fuel future weapons in later iterations but stick with conventional propulsion to start to get everything going.
Not sure why Zumwalt isn't considered seakindly at this point. They keep testing it for emission control and other tactics because it is stealthy. It also has more electrical power, fewer crew. Other than being designed for the wrong task its a great hull. The composite portions of the deckhouse can be redesigned. They already have done it once. Keep in mind Johnson doesn't have that composite deckhouse.
She was lucky in a way to get the fight she was designed for before aircraft could get her.
I agree surface combatants of any size should be a double ender. Tico was the last ship to kind of get it right.
I still look at LCS at what might one day be. Certainly a simpler ship from the ground up is needed as far as propulsion, but an LCS-2 with 2 MH-60R armed with NSMs and two twelve meter boats similarly armed would really make for a hell of a day at sea for any similar sized surface opponent. Lighten the keep out guns to Mk 38 mod IV and move them down by the decoys. Put the Hellfires up top. Replace the weapon zone forward with an 8 cell Mk 41 for ESSM.
No matter the weapons suite and configuration, you have to have your "Woke" elan, and the ever present (but unseen here) continuous contractor support if you want to keep any stripe of LCS operational for more than a day or two.
That eagle would have been imposing over the fireplace in the Salamander lair. Visualize giant leather chairs arranged in a circle where nautical mayhem could be discussed in a civilized manner with whiskey in crystal. That said…I am amazed at how often the knowledgeable members of the Porch harken back to the many successful WWII designs as basis for today’s missions and the obvious lack of effective historic reference among our Admirals. They need to attend a gathering at the lair.
The thing that struck me about this engagement when I first read of it, and still strikes me, is the general ineffectiveness of naval gunfire against other ships.
Jar the elements in the phased array...cause an interior flood from the chill water system...poke a hole in a wave guide....all of which has happened on the Burkes...
That's some bad ass lady, right there.
it does seem like our naval procurement was somehow taken over by an enemy who threw monkey wrenches in all the right places enough times that we now have a birth dirth of ships and are on a self imposed naval population decline. So weird how we used to make stuff, lots of stuff, and now hardly even have refineries for smelting the ore to make the steel from scratch.
love your articles CDR. keep it up sir.
any interest in comparing WW2 pacific naval theater sub warfare to a current day Taiwan/China/US/allies interaction? have we now become the high technology but low producing side, like Germany and Japan were before the war? what would that mean for attrition over 18-24 months of a struggle when we can't build a sub in under 3-5 years?
At this point the Navy should focus on successfully building an object that floats.
LOL!
Maybe Floating Object Flight 2 could include an engine, and Flight 3 could include (gasp!) a weapon. But let's not get ahead of ourselves.
LOL! I’m rolling on the floor! However, that is about par for the course with our current NAVSEA! It sure DIDN’T USED TO BE THAT WAY. These guys couldn’t even copy WHAT WE ALREADY HAD . . . and fold it into something THAT ALREADY EXISTED!
I read that the Aussies are buying a dozen Japanese frigates for about $300 mil a copy. That wouldn't be nearly as good as remembering how to build ships ourselves (like the Big Blue Fleet), but it's a plausible short-term solution.
The Mogami Class has everything one needs for a frigate, and I really like that Integrated Mast.
Never south of 700 million.
Just picked up these two books (always wanted Roscoe's works)...
United States Submarine Operations in World War II
https://www.amazon.com/United-States-Submarine-Operations-World/dp/0870217313
and
The Japanese Submarine Force and World War II (Bluejacket Books)
https://www.amazon.com/Japanese-Submarine-Force-World-Bluejacket/dp/1557500150
The latter is a more pertinent historical analog...Sad to say.
And all that submarine work was accomplished with Diesel Electric . . . HUMMM! Not everything has to be nuke!
It's called "LACK OF LEADERSHIP'! Either that . . . or IT'S DELIBERATE!
Great article with meticulous historical detail. Who knew that there was a "naval office" in Dresden?
Surface raiders were a failed concept overall. Graf Spee sank nine merchant ships, 50k GRT, before being scuttled. Sure, they tied down RN ships but those RN ships had nothing else to do anyway. Put all that metal into more U Boats…
You make a timeless point: Naval bling versus naval strategy.
I think of it more as a problem of The Powers That Be continuing to fight the last war. Obviously, subs were used in WWI, but so were airplanes. But the Gun Club had seniority and all the decision making clout. A really smart person might ask if we haven’t fallen into that same trap.
Alan Gideon: "I think of it more as a problem of The Powers That Be continuing to fight the last war."
Here in the year 2025, 'continuing to fight the last war' means continuing to fight the never-ending Middle East wars at the expense of preparing to fight a future 21st Century war at sea and in the air in the western Pacific.
There is a HUGE DIFFERENCE between 'fighting the last war' and 'LEARNING FROM HiStory"!
The U.S. Navy needs a NON-nuclear U-boat in numbers!
This is so cool.
Another great FbF and music to this tin can sailor ears when you describe potential destroyers and light cruisers of the future! BZ
Full load displacement well over 16K tons, diesel engines, and capable of 28 knots. It'd be interesting to compare bunkerage size to an LCS.
Not really apples to apples but quicky internet says 2500 long tons for Graf Spee with 16,020 full load.
LCS 2 Full load is 3288 and she carries:
501.24 MT which includes 75 for Mission Fuel - boats and helos
(679830L)
179,592 gal
Their fuel fraction is nearly the same with Graf Spee taking it by a smidge. But again, apples to oranges and time.
Yes and no, in as much as it begs the question what could be done with a modern hull and modern diesels if you wanted build something of large displacement and reasonably but not obscenely fast. (And frankly I'm surprised the LCS fuel fraction is as low as it is.)
I have always suspected (but never able to confirm) that our own Alaska class was designed to beat this type. Which they would have done. Handily.
Seems they were gunning for Scharnhorst.
Possibly, though Scharnhorst was a true,if undergunned, BB.
11 inch main guns.
Yes. Like I said.
That and a rumored class of Japanese super heavy cruiser.
Yes. I was aware of that line of reasoning.
Norman Friedman covered this specific topic here in Ch 10, p. 288:
U.S. Cruisers: An Illustrated Design History
https://www.amazon.com/U-S-Cruisers-Illustrated-Design-History/dp/0870217186
excerpts:
-----
"The concept of a super-cruiser to counter existing cruisers was hardly new in the late thirties. About a decade before much publicity had been given to a purported French project for a 17,500 ton cruiser killer with eight 12 inch guns..."
When details of the German Deutchsland class pocket battleship first became available in 1929, there was a proposal to rearm U.S. heavy cruisers with twin 10 inch gun turrets in place of their triple 8 inch turrets."
----
What killed a big pursuit in this direction in the early 30's was the still existing treaty restrictions. That tonnage was deemed more valuable in other programs.
Friedman continues with how the concept evolved...
---
"Enemy heavy cruisers were the primary surface threat [carriers] faced, so some kind of cruiser killer was an attractive carrier escort."
"The carrier screening role accounts for the enthusiasm Admiral King [as Commander Aircraft Battle Force at the time] showed for the Alaska project."
---
Adm. King wasn't the only powerful advocate that pushed the Alaska into reality though...
----
"...the Alaskas are usually attributed to President Roosevelt [see the account of his insistence that the CVLs be built] and dismissed as an absurdity and as typical of the effects of amateurism in military procurement."
-----
That derision came from the competition for the resources needed for the then building fast BB's.
Because their top hamper designs were so similiar, its easy to think the Alaskas were actually BB's. But continuing in Friedman's description of the details in design, its shows how they were in fact built like cruisers.
This pic with the Alaska alongside the Missouri also makes the point...
https://www.reddit.com/r/WarshipPorn/comments/18w5veh/fast_battleship_uss_missouri_and_heavy_cruiser/#lightbox
Excellent. Thank you.
For the short time they were around, the Alaskas sure proved their worth as carrier protectors...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KNJdaG1UWuA
Good vid by Drachinifel here...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mVWtKOZ0sFI
Loved the Drachinifel video. Thanks for posting.
Good Morning CDR Salamander.
What do you think of the Basic Recruit Training, “Shark Attack” vs. First 100 yards.
When you floated aboard ship, were your assigned Marines “Ready”?
I remember my training…
If there is blood in the water, get out of the water!
I swam with a Tiger Shark and that scared me! The year was about 1977 - 1978. My “Buddy” ditched me! Then I sad Tiger!
Marines are tough!
Leave no “Buddy” behind, was another phrase taught me.
I respect our Marines aboard ship.
Stay safe! Nurse Jane
Forget German stuff, just severely update the Baltimore class. Keep the 8 inch guns, replace the other weapons with modern upgrades. Put a nuclear power plant in to fuel future weapons in later iterations but stick with conventional propulsion to start to get everything going.
In the world we live in I'd go for Zumwalt Flt II.
- Lower the aft deck and place a 127/64 there deleting the boat launch for a Captas 4. Flight deck now only has one helo spot.
- Move the boat davits either directly below the hangar or into the hangar. Might end up being 1 helo and 1 boat.
-The remaining forward gun is 127/64
- The 2 CIWS over the hangar get swapped for RAM launchers w/ Swap-C for lasers.
- Place a Mk 110 57mm stealth mount forward of the 127/64
- Keep the 4 large tubes up front with the option for 7 21" cells or 3 34" cells.
-Switch to Aegis and SPY-6.
"In the world we live in I'd go for Zumwalt Flt II."
You gonna teach the crew to take care of that balsa cored antenna cover?
Drill holes in it without taking care to protect the core, and you can expect rot, as seen here...
https://x.com/FranzMaser/status/1952283279547142210
https://x.com/WarshipCam/status/1952359600201535538/photo/1
https://x.com/BbHowk/status/1943108520972620178/photo/1
All those flagging gray panels (which cost how much?) sure don't augur well for the tuna boat sized radar return.
Also, by how much do those iron infused rust streaks increase the RCS?
https://x.com/cdrsalamander/status/1894948469061849122/photo/1
So, whats point of continuing with this hull?
The 4 inches of steel behind that PVLS for starters.
Any reason thats impossible in a more seakindly hull?
Theres only better than a century and a half of experience around building steel ships.
Why stick with the Zumwalt hull...unless you care about stealth above all...stealth that is so very obviously compromised.
Not sure why Zumwalt isn't considered seakindly at this point. They keep testing it for emission control and other tactics because it is stealthy. It also has more electrical power, fewer crew. Other than being designed for the wrong task its a great hull. The composite portions of the deckhouse can be redesigned. They already have done it once. Keep in mind Johnson doesn't have that composite deckhouse.
How wet is she in a rowdy sea?
At speed?
And I bet its not as stealthy in the Real World as advertised.
A more voluminous hull would be better. Why live with the constraints imposed by this one?
Its kinda like Hollywood. And the music industry. Why do we need to stick with the same old dreck?
I would go with the Oregon City instead. It did some improvements on the design with the deck house more compact.
I'll see your Baltimore and raise you one Des Moines class with the autoload as a baseline design.
She was lucky in a way to get the fight she was designed for before aircraft could get her.
I agree surface combatants of any size should be a double ender. Tico was the last ship to kind of get it right.
I still look at LCS at what might one day be. Certainly a simpler ship from the ground up is needed as far as propulsion, but an LCS-2 with 2 MH-60R armed with NSMs and two twelve meter boats similarly armed would really make for a hell of a day at sea for any similar sized surface opponent. Lighten the keep out guns to Mk 38 mod IV and move them down by the decoys. Put the Hellfires up top. Replace the weapon zone forward with an 8 cell Mk 41 for ESSM.
Don't forget...
No matter the weapons suite and configuration, you have to have your "Woke" elan, and the ever present (but unseen here) continuous contractor support if you want to keep any stripe of LCS operational for more than a day or two.
https://x.com/SurfaceWarriors/status/1953873638131654894
Certain that is still the case? They were to keep growing the crew.
Thought they didnt have the hotel services to do so.
Any current LCS's ever get past 32 knots these days?
Seems Naval Surface Forces is still very much pushing DEI Woke principles.
One of my favorite ships too.
Very minor point; she had six 105mm AAA guns, not six 150mm.
Where are the rust streaks?
That eagle would have been imposing over the fireplace in the Salamander lair. Visualize giant leather chairs arranged in a circle where nautical mayhem could be discussed in a civilized manner with whiskey in crystal. That said…I am amazed at how often the knowledgeable members of the Porch harken back to the many successful WWII designs as basis for today’s missions and the obvious lack of effective historic reference among our Admirals. They need to attend a gathering at the lair.
The little museum in Montevideo is a must visit...
https://youtu.be/k5U6i-RHHSM?si=CH60iRoyuOkJwbnF
As is the difficult to find cemetery plot for the Graf Spee's dead in Buenos Aires...
https://www.maritimequest.com/warship_directory/germany/pages/cruisers/admiral_graf_spee_german_cemetery_july_2007_pg_1.htm
The feeling I had when I visited there was, that if I had been around when we were enemies, I would've done my utmost best to put them where they are.
That said, they are also owed the respect they were due.
The thing that struck me about this engagement when I first read of it, and still strikes me, is the general ineffectiveness of naval gunfire against other ships.
Maybe far more effective against modern thin hulls, aluminum superstructures and "mission kills" handily replacing sinkings, Tim.
Jar the elements in the phased array...cause an interior flood from the chill water system...poke a hole in a wave guide....all of which has happened on the Burkes...
And you have a solid Mission Kill these days.