Can it refuel anything other than a little speedboat, drone or Helo?
The USNS SUPPLY was the USS SUPPLY, oh, and there's a couple more just like her, and she can be refitted with the CIWS that were cut off, and her GE (first generation) LM2500 can be upgraded to G4.
And BAM.
A ship that can do everything, the Portuguese ship can do, and we already own three or more of them.
And it can sling Ammo, bonds, missiles, all day long.
She can keep up with carriers, and the small boys just bounce off her.
Did I mention we already have three of them?
Now we just got to get to get the people on them.
Apparently, working for the US Navy is pretty freaking terrible, by modern standards.
Reactivating the two that are idle would cost more than $1 billion.
Building a new one? I don't think they could for $1 billion.
I like the Portuguese boat.
But is this really all that “expeditionary?”
I just wanted to do a little compare and contrast.
The US Navy has many vessels that could do this Portuguese boat’s mission, But the US Navy has them supporting the expeditionary nature of the US Navy.
I think the Navy has a bigger problem with risk tolerance.
Or keeping talent. Or attracting qualified individuals.
It's right up there with their inability to build ships.
"Building a new one? I don't think they could for $1 billion."
The UK is building 3 new FSS (think the class will be called the Resurgent Class) for £1.6bn (c$2bn) so it is possible, they are only slightly smaller than Supply Class or the Lewis and Clark. the solid store part of the ship is the really expensive bit...bunkerage for aviation or fuel oil could be done with a very cheap stretch (which oddly enough might help with top speed).
But....they'll run at 20 knots max....to get to the 25 knots of the Supply (or preceding Sacramento) you're going to need extra power, which is possible with diesels (see Maersk's B class container) and avoids the ruinous cost of running GT's. But do you really need to?
We're not out of the woods yet....everyone has known for years that around now might be the absolute nadir...but the next 5 years are crucial...
The Type 45 issues are almost conclusively over now...4 of the 6 have their PIP complete, the last 2 in 2027 and 2028. The last 2 ships will also have had the full MLU of Samson MLU, SVE, Aster 30 Block 1, CAMM, NSM, Wildcat with Sea Venom and Dragonfire DEW (the rest will get all that in next yard period). Then Type 26 and Type 31 will begin to arrive, SSN availability will increase, F-35 deliveries will finish (for Tranche 1 at least), P-8 gets Stingray, FSS in build....
But....there are still big issues to be faced...MRSS needs selecting and building, RFA pay, retention and availability needs rapidly sorting, Type 23 has to hang on in there until 2035, River B.1's are going in 2 years, MCM motherships need selecting and building (there may be a light on the horizon for that though...), Vanguard Class availability, Dreadnought will continue to suck up funds, AUKUS, F-35 Block IV...and recruitment/retention in general...
We'll progressively get better over the next 5 years, by 2035 things should be looking good again...this is what happens when GWOT eats up funds and politicians put off ordering ships for 10 years+...
And USNS Supply is over 30 years old. You are making my case, and that of Sal's, for more and more *new* logistics support ships, which can be a separate discussion. I certainly like your idea of having unrep ships that can also (at a minimum) defend themselves. The good ship Niagara Falls only had four 3"-50 twin mounts, but that was the way of the world in the early 1960's. That ship's basic concept could easily be updated for today's combat environment.....but apparently no one in DC wants to be the program manager of something that doesn't include a "G" in its pennant number.
The 3”-50 has a much higher pitched sound when fired compared to the 5”-54 - a real pain on the ears, even with the pilot house doors closed, when the after mounts fired at targets forward of the beam. Firing them also screwed with my VHF & UHF transceivers. The ETs always had work to do afterwards.
By the time I came aboard, those aft mounts were gone, replaced by cows. I was always suprised that they were ever mounted that high- seems like it's a lot of top weight. Must've been nice from the gunners perspective though!
Sanctions non-compliance...highly likely they'll be convicted (its a bit of a slam dunk case) which will lock them out of any European Government procurements for years...without that work they fold...
But more than that...which is bad enough...their 2 big contracts at present, the German F126 Frigate programme and Dutch/Belgian ASWF Frigate programme are LCS levels of disaster zones....they make the Constellation Class look like a well run programme....
Yes, but I can't help but feel everyone is getting a little too over-excited by them. They're an interesting new Coast Guard vessel at best...but they're no military vessel...
Been saying for a long time - we know how to build LHAs. Build a lot more...Start doing that. Up-gun to the SPY-6 and strap on RIMs and APKWS for drones. You can then support F-35Bs, helicopters or Osprey/Valor (ASW or mines or troop deployments), or alternately you can fill the decks with any CONEX strap on you want if needed. Produce a BUNCH of those from what we already know works. If we had, oh, another 20 of these able to defend themselves and others, what does that do? Pair that with the LHD-17 Arsenal ship concept, which we can also build NOW in our yards, and you have some pretty solid capabilities added to the fleet.
They are already getting rotating spy-6. My beef is that although a good value, you won’t grownnumbers with it and it puts a pinch on manpower. Its why Insay go with anclean sheet, small LSD where we can move a Marine company around at range and endurance rather then a 4 day ferry ride. Gives is a chance to realize a feneration’s worth of improved automation. Crew it with say 126-128 and haul 336 marines with helos and connectors. Can slide into any maintenance facility anble to work on a Burke.
I get you...the usual problem with going smaller is sea keeping and fleet integration. In addition, the LHA/LHD size lets you carry crew that can be multi-mission for various containerized options. Limited crew, limited options. If we go too far toward automation, it will delay when we can build due to all the certifications and testing before we can even get to the build. This is a "what can we do now in the yards" program to my mind.
In fairness, the Portuguese Navy was plying the world's oceans before anyone had even set foot in the New World.
Under the aegis of Henry the Navigator, the Portuguese did the hard, dangerous work of crossing the dangerous shoals seaward of Cape Bojador. They discovered the Cape of Good Hope and transited those treacherous waters to the Indian Ocean.
They explored the IO and established colonies on its littoral as far afield as India. One of those, Goa, remained in their possession until the new "peace-loving" government of India militarily occupied it in the early 1960s.
Although not rigorously documented, it is believed that in the process of exploring the West African coast, the Portuguese may have "discovered"--though not actually claimed--the New World in the form of the Brazilian coast around what is nowadays Recife. Inferentially, this may explain Portugal's requested adjustment of the line of demarcation under the Treaty of Tordesillas.
Henry the Navigator may have contributed more to the European dominance of the world for four centuries than Columbus, Cabot, Magellan and the rest together. And insofar as I'm aware, Henry never put to sea himself, spending his time in that eyrie of his on Cap Finisterre (of Portugal).
Perhaps more directly on point, Henry was responsible for the development of the caravel, the ship that dominated the oceans for many years. Portugal also developed the carrack, a larger, heavier and more robust vessel which became the mainstay of Spanish and Portuguese trade.
I am not Portuguese myself but I am a great admirer.
I asked Google AI who owned the shipyard where the Santa Maria was built. Google responds that the Santa Maria was likely built in Galicia, Spain. But which specific shipyard, and who owned that shipyard, is not not known.
I didn't question that it was a Portuguese crew. If you were Columbus, you would need the best crew you find for the mission, and a Portuguese crew would give you that. I was curious as to who constructed the ship, and where.
Is it possible to have all the personnel at NAVSEA taken to a naval shipyard and hung by a Yard Arm? It would provide both an efficient way to end their silliness and be a very traditional way of punishment for the Navy to continue showing off our heritage to the younger sailors and Marines. I know, I know, it is illegal, but I am just spit balling here.
I understand your pain. In the early 1980's as a relatively new EDO, I was assigned to SEA 50, the preliminary ship design division. I obviously did not fit well there - I kept finding answers where I was told there were none, like finally putting a helo hangar on the Burke class. Later on, as a contractor I worked on DDG-1000. Did you know that the 155mm gun mounts were never given the software to enable them to hit a surface target? Not in the contract, so it didn't happen.
What I am hearing from with this post is that we need to put in Yard Arms and hang people again….I mean, it is traditional, efficient, we can then let them hang for a time as an example to others. It just seems like a win, win situation. We will have to start in Newport of course, but we can move on from that location to others.
Just to show you I am not closed minded, I am open to other ideas on the mass executions of NAVSEA personnel. And to go ever farther in showing how open I am, I will even entertain blindfolds and cigerattes as they are about to be hung, shot, keel hauled, etc…..See….I am super open and not a monster.
The LHA's in their current configuration are too slow. In a war with China in the western Pacific, speed and tactical mobility will be an essential element of any plan to fight the PLAN on the high seas. The LHA's and the LPD-17's don't have the speed which is needed to properly support the carrier strike groups in a bluewater combat engagement.
It would be easiest to start with a clean sheet, small LSD with a bit more speed. LHA-1 was originally a 24 knot ship. Thomaston LSDs made 23. A smaller ship could use a bit more speed just to
Make sure they can keep up with the other amphibs in a higher sea state. As for LHA’s maybe give the hybrid power plant a refresh with lm-2500+g4 or mt30s. Get some PMM motors in their.
Damen is all-around a pretty amazing company, in today’s c@#&@ck of shipbuilding. Military and civilian. They’ve also built a bunch of the Ulstein-designed X-bow vessels, the performance of which drew general applause in the merchant world.
One of the initial proposals for a replacement for the venerable but mighty USCG medium-endurance cutters was an X-bow. Guess it looked funny, or sump’in. Also not much room for the popguns placed on cutters.
They're on the cusp of going under....they're under investigation for sanctions breaking with convictions highly likely which will bar them from public procurements for years, and of their 2 main contracts...
The F-126 programme is on the verge of collapse with Germany having to order new Meko A-200 from TKMS to cover the gap, Lurssen are now taking over...
The ASWF programme for the Netherlands and Belgium is also a massively delayed ongoing cl**sterf*ck....
If they're still independent in 2 years it will be a miracle...
Fifteen knots maximum speed is much too slow for a warship which must have the same tactical mobility as a carrier strike group.
This is the same basic reason why building more LHAs in their current configuration is a mistake.
The LPD-17 class is also too slow. In a war with China in the western Pacific, speed and tactical mobility will be an essential element of any plan to fight the PLAN on the high seas.
That said, we have been talking about the flexibility and utility of smaller aircraft carriers for more than a decade.
The Navy's Deep State NAVSEA bureaucracy couldn't even conceive of such a thing -- not seriously, anyway -- and would do its best to thwart the project if it was being seriously proposed.
The only way this happens is for the Commander in Chief to be convinced that a smaller, flexible, but also fast aircraft carrier is needed, one that is useful against the PLAN in a bluewater combat engagement, and then to push hard for its funding and its subsequent development.
I just read about this new ship over at "Naval News." Portugal? Porto, sardines and leather shoes? UN Secretary General and geriatric socialist anti-semite, Antonio Guterres? That Portugal? Nah, must be a mistake.
We need a smaller carrier which is flexible enough to quickly transition from a somewhat savage war of peace to the much more savage war of a bluewater fight on the high seas with the PLAN.
Give this vessel a maximum speed of 30 knots or even faster, and we have such a warship.
Possibly 100 feet of additional hull length would be needed to accommodate the systems needed to carry that additional speed; but would be well worth the hull modifications necessary for the combat flexibility so acquired.
Good on you for understanding that every increase in capability has a physical price. For a given hull, the speed-power curve is a cubic, so everything above 15 knots is quite costly. Not knowing the intended power plant, I just ran out an example using a pair of Warsila 31 diesels. Adding 100 ft to a 115m hull improves its efficiency on the order of 37%, all else being equal - the problem comes from demanding more speed. Moving the demanded top speed from 15 knots to 20 requires a power plant 3.7x more powerful; 15 to 25 knots 8.7x more powerful; 15 to 30 knots 17.7x more powerful (on the order of 360k hp). Obviously an absurd number, so you'd re-design the hull completely. The Damen [edit to correct name of the shipyard] hull was design specifically for lower speeds. My point here, as you are aware, is that there are NO independent variables in ship design. Great online exchange.
One of the reasons I am in favor of an all-electric propulsion system is that the gas turbines and/or the diesels can be brought on line only as needed when higher speeds are required in a combat engagement which requires those speeds.
Anyway, the basic point must be made that the combat conditions the US Navy will face in a bluewater combat engagement with the PLAN in the western Pacific will be far more demanding than those faced by the Europeans in their own waters.
Which is why basing a US Navy frigate on the FREMM design was a mistake from the very beginning of the Constellation Class project.
<nodding my head thoughtfully> I can certainly see your point about all-electric propulsion. My only experience with that was in the DDG-1000 design, which pretty much sums up all of that experience we have since the New Mexico class BBs. As you can imagine, there is an inherent challenge in designing a frigate-sized ship with the long legs needed for the Pacific theater. Hence, the unbelievably large need for more logistics ships. I'm not excusing all of the mistakes made with the Constellation class; just noting the over all problem boundaries. Everyone in the requirements-setting business in naval ship acquisition needs a month-long course in the fact that physics is physics, regardless of what their fairy godmothers say.
Alan, before I retired, I was a projects/programs systems analyst inside the federal government's nuclear complex. I am a mechanical engineer by education with prior experience in the mining industry before I was brought into the weapons complex by friends who were already there.
At any rate, I have seen some number of project successes and know the hows and the whys of those project successes. And I have also seen some number of project failures and know the whys of how those projects failed.
The most often seen root cause of a project failure is poor management of the upfront project planning, including a requirements analysis done by people who don't know either the technology or the operational context of the large-scale systems they are attempting to specify.
Admiral Rickover was a complete skeptic of the DOD 5000 approach to requirements management. It took responsibility out of the hands of the people who knew both the technology and the operational context of the proposed systems and put it into the hands of people who didn't know either the technologies or the operational contexts.
First, I applaud your history. My project management experience has been with ship design, repair, construction, and in analyzing the law suits following those projects. My Ph.D dissertation was on the topic of DoD cost overruns. I absolutely agree with your root cause analysis, but need to add in one more factor - people lie. I have sufficient data to prove the trend. It’s usually done with the “best of intentions”, though sometimes with lower motivations - either way, bogus starting points are bogus starting points. We have ample *valid* experience in ship design, and in naval combat simulation, as well as beaucoup GAO reports on ship program failures, to avoid these problems, but, sadly, all the usual suspects are still in charge.
I would do a clean sheet LHA. Maybe call it an LPH and leave the well deck off again. Speed it up so it can be a CVL or still embark Marines for landing. It needs a smaller crew and be built for less, faster. Same story for almost all our ship types.
And it's VLS count is?
Can it refuel anything other than a little speedboat, drone or Helo?
The USNS SUPPLY was the USS SUPPLY, oh, and there's a couple more just like her, and she can be refitted with the CIWS that were cut off, and her GE (first generation) LM2500 can be upgraded to G4.
And BAM.
A ship that can do everything, the Portuguese ship can do, and we already own three or more of them.
And it can sling Ammo, bonds, missiles, all day long.
She can keep up with carriers, and the small boys just bounce off her.
Did I mention we already have three of them?
Now we just got to get to get the people on them.
Apparently, working for the US Navy is pretty freaking terrible, by modern standards.
And building new ones will cost well north of a billion each.
Reactivating the two that are idle would cost more than $1 billion.
Building a new one? I don't think they could for $1 billion.
I like the Portuguese boat.
But is this really all that “expeditionary?”
I just wanted to do a little compare and contrast.
The US Navy has many vessels that could do this Portuguese boat’s mission, But the US Navy has them supporting the expeditionary nature of the US Navy.
I think the Navy has a bigger problem with risk tolerance.
Or keeping talent. Or attracting qualified individuals.
It's right up there with their inability to build ships.
"Building a new one? I don't think they could for $1 billion."
The UK is building 3 new FSS (think the class will be called the Resurgent Class) for £1.6bn (c$2bn) so it is possible, they are only slightly smaller than Supply Class or the Lewis and Clark. the solid store part of the ship is the really expensive bit...bunkerage for aviation or fuel oil could be done with a very cheap stretch (which oddly enough might help with top speed).
But....they'll run at 20 knots max....to get to the 25 knots of the Supply (or preceding Sacramento) you're going to need extra power, which is possible with diesels (see Maersk's B class container) and avoids the ruinous cost of running GT's. But do you really need to?
https://www.navylookout.com/steel-cut-for-rfa-resurgent-the-first-fleet-solid-support-ship/
It'll be nice to see the British Navy come back.
See you in the Indopacom.
Oh, and DON'T give away Diego Garcia. Especially don't give it to a Chinese agent.
We're not out of the woods yet....everyone has known for years that around now might be the absolute nadir...but the next 5 years are crucial...
The Type 45 issues are almost conclusively over now...4 of the 6 have their PIP complete, the last 2 in 2027 and 2028. The last 2 ships will also have had the full MLU of Samson MLU, SVE, Aster 30 Block 1, CAMM, NSM, Wildcat with Sea Venom and Dragonfire DEW (the rest will get all that in next yard period). Then Type 26 and Type 31 will begin to arrive, SSN availability will increase, F-35 deliveries will finish (for Tranche 1 at least), P-8 gets Stingray, FSS in build....
But....there are still big issues to be faced...MRSS needs selecting and building, RFA pay, retention and availability needs rapidly sorting, Type 23 has to hang on in there until 2035, River B.1's are going in 2 years, MCM motherships need selecting and building (there may be a light on the horizon for that though...), Vanguard Class availability, Dreadnought will continue to suck up funds, AUKUS, F-35 Block IV...and recruitment/retention in general...
We'll progressively get better over the next 5 years, by 2035 things should be looking good again...this is what happens when GWOT eats up funds and politicians put off ordering ships for 10 years+...
And USNS Supply is over 30 years old. You are making my case, and that of Sal's, for more and more *new* logistics support ships, which can be a separate discussion. I certainly like your idea of having unrep ships that can also (at a minimum) defend themselves. The good ship Niagara Falls only had four 3"-50 twin mounts, but that was the way of the world in the early 1960's. That ship's basic concept could easily be updated for today's combat environment.....but apparently no one in DC wants to be the program manager of something that doesn't include a "G" in its pennant number.
Happy memory. They were "only 3"50s", but they still shook Sylvania pretty good when it was playtime!!
The 3”-50 has a much higher pitched sound when fired compared to the 5”-54 - a real pain on the ears, even with the pilot house doors closed, when the after mounts fired at targets forward of the beam. Firing them also screwed with my VHF & UHF transceivers. The ETs always had work to do afterwards.
By the time I came aboard, those aft mounts were gone, replaced by cows. I was always suprised that they were ever mounted that high- seems like it's a lot of top weight. Must've been nice from the gunners perspective though!
Cows or CIWS?
Lol... I saw that after the fact. We had milk aboard... but pretty sure it was CIWS up on the superstructure lol
I'll take 16 in the first batch please.
These make too much sense to be adopted, I'm afraid.
Laid down in October of '24 and launched in April of '26? That is impressive in itself.
Damen is a different sort of shipyard. They get paid when the hull hits the water.
They're also in enormous trouble at the moment and might not survive....
For what?
Sanctions non-compliance...highly likely they'll be convicted (its a bit of a slam dunk case) which will lock them out of any European Government procurements for years...without that work they fold...
But more than that...which is bad enough...their 2 big contracts at present, the German F126 Frigate programme and Dutch/Belgian ASWF Frigate programme are LCS levels of disaster zones....they make the Constellation Class look like a well run programme....
I should add...they have severe, errr, 'cash flow' problems as well....which as you can see from above are only going to get worse and worse...
Well, Ulstein or Feadship will buy the good parts....
Its built entirely to commercial standards..
So they managed to deliver to spec without NAVSEA?
Yes, but I can't help but feel everyone is getting a little too over-excited by them. They're an interesting new Coast Guard vessel at best...but they're no military vessel...
Not every ship needs 16" guns and 6" armor belts
Been saying for a long time - we know how to build LHAs. Build a lot more...Start doing that. Up-gun to the SPY-6 and strap on RIMs and APKWS for drones. You can then support F-35Bs, helicopters or Osprey/Valor (ASW or mines or troop deployments), or alternately you can fill the decks with any CONEX strap on you want if needed. Produce a BUNCH of those from what we already know works. If we had, oh, another 20 of these able to defend themselves and others, what does that do? Pair that with the LHD-17 Arsenal ship concept, which we can also build NOW in our yards, and you have some pretty solid capabilities added to the fleet.
They are already getting rotating spy-6. My beef is that although a good value, you won’t grownnumbers with it and it puts a pinch on manpower. Its why Insay go with anclean sheet, small LSD where we can move a Marine company around at range and endurance rather then a 4 day ferry ride. Gives is a chance to realize a feneration’s worth of improved automation. Crew it with say 126-128 and haul 336 marines with helos and connectors. Can slide into any maintenance facility anble to work on a Burke.
I get you...the usual problem with going smaller is sea keeping and fleet integration. In addition, the LHA/LHD size lets you carry crew that can be multi-mission for various containerized options. Limited crew, limited options. If we go too far toward automation, it will delay when we can build due to all the certifications and testing before we can even get to the build. This is a "what can we do now in the yards" program to my mind.
We need to work with the Japanese and just use some of what they have developed to survive a declining population.
"Get some Marines in the room. They’ll have even better ideas. "
aw shucks, CDR. Semper Fi
In fairness, the Portuguese Navy was plying the world's oceans before anyone had even set foot in the New World.
Under the aegis of Henry the Navigator, the Portuguese did the hard, dangerous work of crossing the dangerous shoals seaward of Cape Bojador. They discovered the Cape of Good Hope and transited those treacherous waters to the Indian Ocean.
They explored the IO and established colonies on its littoral as far afield as India. One of those, Goa, remained in their possession until the new "peace-loving" government of India militarily occupied it in the early 1960s.
Although not rigorously documented, it is believed that in the process of exploring the West African coast, the Portuguese may have "discovered"--though not actually claimed--the New World in the form of the Brazilian coast around what is nowadays Recife. Inferentially, this may explain Portugal's requested adjustment of the line of demarcation under the Treaty of Tordesillas.
Henry the Navigator may have contributed more to the European dominance of the world for four centuries than Columbus, Cabot, Magellan and the rest together. And insofar as I'm aware, Henry never put to sea himself, spending his time in that eyrie of his on Cap Finisterre (of Portugal).
Perhaps more directly on point, Henry was responsible for the development of the caravel, the ship that dominated the oceans for many years. Portugal also developed the carrack, a larger, heavier and more robust vessel which became the mainstay of Spanish and Portuguese trade.
I am not Portuguese myself but I am a great admirer.
Let's not forget about the Nina, the Pinta and the Santa Maria, which the Portuguese claim, in their Museu de Marinha, they crewed.
I had not known that! :-) Thank you! :-)
I asked Google AI who owned the shipyard where the Santa Maria was built. Google responds that the Santa Maria was likely built in Galicia, Spain. But which specific shipyard, and who owned that shipyard, is not not known.
My authority is an exhibit at the Museu de Marinha where I saw the Nina's anchor. They claim the crew was mostly Portuguese.
I didn't question that it was a Portuguese crew. If you were Columbus, you would need the best crew you find for the mission, and a Portuguese crew would give you that. I was curious as to who constructed the ship, and where.
While Badgers gave definite ideas about 5"ers, we are more than happy with OTO Melera 76mm guns.
Is it possible to have all the personnel at NAVSEA taken to a naval shipyard and hung by a Yard Arm? It would provide both an efficient way to end their silliness and be a very traditional way of punishment for the Navy to continue showing off our heritage to the younger sailors and Marines. I know, I know, it is illegal, but I am just spit balling here.
I understand your pain. In the early 1980's as a relatively new EDO, I was assigned to SEA 50, the preliminary ship design division. I obviously did not fit well there - I kept finding answers where I was told there were none, like finally putting a helo hangar on the Burke class. Later on, as a contractor I worked on DDG-1000. Did you know that the 155mm gun mounts were never given the software to enable them to hit a surface target? Not in the contract, so it didn't happen.
What I am hearing from with this post is that we need to put in Yard Arms and hang people again….I mean, it is traditional, efficient, we can then let them hang for a time as an example to others. It just seems like a win, win situation. We will have to start in Newport of course, but we can move on from that location to others.
Just to show you I am not closed minded, I am open to other ideas on the mass executions of NAVSEA personnel. And to go ever farther in showing how open I am, I will even entertain blindfolds and cigerattes as they are about to be hung, shot, keel hauled, etc…..See….I am super open and not a monster.
Maybe what we need to do is have Damen build LHAs?
The LHA's in their current configuration are too slow. In a war with China in the western Pacific, speed and tactical mobility will be an essential element of any plan to fight the PLAN on the high seas. The LHA's and the LPD-17's don't have the speed which is needed to properly support the carrier strike groups in a bluewater combat engagement.
It would be easiest to start with a clean sheet, small LSD with a bit more speed. LHA-1 was originally a 24 knot ship. Thomaston LSDs made 23. A smaller ship could use a bit more speed just to
Make sure they can keep up with the other amphibs in a higher sea state. As for LHA’s maybe give the hybrid power plant a refresh with lm-2500+g4 or mt30s. Get some PMM motors in their.
Damen is all-around a pretty amazing company, in today’s c@#&@ck of shipbuilding. Military and civilian. They’ve also built a bunch of the Ulstein-designed X-bow vessels, the performance of which drew general applause in the merchant world.
One of the initial proposals for a replacement for the venerable but mighty USCG medium-endurance cutters was an X-bow. Guess it looked funny, or sump’in. Also not much room for the popguns placed on cutters.
"Damen is all-around a pretty amazing company"
You're kidding right?.....Right????
They're on the cusp of going under....they're under investigation for sanctions breaking with convictions highly likely which will bar them from public procurements for years, and of their 2 main contracts...
The F-126 programme is on the verge of collapse with Germany having to order new Meko A-200 from TKMS to cover the gap, Lurssen are now taking over...
The ASWF programme for the Netherlands and Belgium is also a massively delayed ongoing cl**sterf*ck....
If they're still independent in 2 years it will be a miracle...
Fifteen knots maximum speed is much too slow for a warship which must have the same tactical mobility as a carrier strike group.
This is the same basic reason why building more LHAs in their current configuration is a mistake.
The LPD-17 class is also too slow. In a war with China in the western Pacific, speed and tactical mobility will be an essential element of any plan to fight the PLAN on the high seas.
That said, we have been talking about the flexibility and utility of smaller aircraft carriers for more than a decade.
The Navy's Deep State NAVSEA bureaucracy couldn't even conceive of such a thing -- not seriously, anyway -- and would do its best to thwart the project if it was being seriously proposed.
The only way this happens is for the Commander in Chief to be convinced that a smaller, flexible, but also fast aircraft carrier is needed, one that is useful against the PLAN in a bluewater combat engagement, and then to push hard for its funding and its subsequent development.
Current commander in chief will kill CVNs is someone pushes a CVL
why does a boat like this need CVN speed?
I just read about this new ship over at "Naval News." Portugal? Porto, sardines and leather shoes? UN Secretary General and geriatric socialist anti-semite, Antonio Guterres? That Portugal? Nah, must be a mistake.
great functionality for a good price.
ugly as F though :)
She’s a perfect ship for the savage wars of peace, and useful in the CVE role. Well done for the Portuguese in designing a nice ship.
We need a smaller carrier which is flexible enough to quickly transition from a somewhat savage war of peace to the much more savage war of a bluewater fight on the high seas with the PLAN.
Give this vessel a maximum speed of 30 knots or even faster, and we have such a warship.
Possibly 100 feet of additional hull length would be needed to accommodate the systems needed to carry that additional speed; but would be well worth the hull modifications necessary for the combat flexibility so acquired.
Good on you for understanding that every increase in capability has a physical price. For a given hull, the speed-power curve is a cubic, so everything above 15 knots is quite costly. Not knowing the intended power plant, I just ran out an example using a pair of Warsila 31 diesels. Adding 100 ft to a 115m hull improves its efficiency on the order of 37%, all else being equal - the problem comes from demanding more speed. Moving the demanded top speed from 15 knots to 20 requires a power plant 3.7x more powerful; 15 to 25 knots 8.7x more powerful; 15 to 30 knots 17.7x more powerful (on the order of 360k hp). Obviously an absurd number, so you'd re-design the hull completely. The Damen [edit to correct name of the shipyard] hull was design specifically for lower speeds. My point here, as you are aware, is that there are NO independent variables in ship design. Great online exchange.
One of the reasons I am in favor of an all-electric propulsion system is that the gas turbines and/or the diesels can be brought on line only as needed when higher speeds are required in a combat engagement which requires those speeds.
Anyway, the basic point must be made that the combat conditions the US Navy will face in a bluewater combat engagement with the PLAN in the western Pacific will be far more demanding than those faced by the Europeans in their own waters.
Which is why basing a US Navy frigate on the FREMM design was a mistake from the very beginning of the Constellation Class project.
<nodding my head thoughtfully> I can certainly see your point about all-electric propulsion. My only experience with that was in the DDG-1000 design, which pretty much sums up all of that experience we have since the New Mexico class BBs. As you can imagine, there is an inherent challenge in designing a frigate-sized ship with the long legs needed for the Pacific theater. Hence, the unbelievably large need for more logistics ships. I'm not excusing all of the mistakes made with the Constellation class; just noting the over all problem boundaries. Everyone in the requirements-setting business in naval ship acquisition needs a month-long course in the fact that physics is physics, regardless of what their fairy godmothers say.
Alan, before I retired, I was a projects/programs systems analyst inside the federal government's nuclear complex. I am a mechanical engineer by education with prior experience in the mining industry before I was brought into the weapons complex by friends who were already there.
At any rate, I have seen some number of project successes and know the hows and the whys of those project successes. And I have also seen some number of project failures and know the whys of how those projects failed.
The most often seen root cause of a project failure is poor management of the upfront project planning, including a requirements analysis done by people who don't know either the technology or the operational context of the large-scale systems they are attempting to specify.
Admiral Rickover was a complete skeptic of the DOD 5000 approach to requirements management. It took responsibility out of the hands of the people who knew both the technology and the operational context of the proposed systems and put it into the hands of people who didn't know either the technologies or the operational contexts.
First, I applaud your history. My project management experience has been with ship design, repair, construction, and in analyzing the law suits following those projects. My Ph.D dissertation was on the topic of DoD cost overruns. I absolutely agree with your root cause analysis, but need to add in one more factor - people lie. I have sufficient data to prove the trend. It’s usually done with the “best of intentions”, though sometimes with lower motivations - either way, bogus starting points are bogus starting points. We have ample *valid* experience in ship design, and in naval combat simulation, as well as beaucoup GAO reports on ship program failures, to avoid these problems, but, sadly, all the usual suspects are still in charge.
Make sure it has safe munitions handling and storage built in for splodey drone noses and those drones are it’s “up arming”.
What's it cost?
1/3 the price of an LHA? 1/2 the price of an ESB?
I read the other comments. Yes, slow. However, lots of capability for distributed operations. Good drone carrier.
Portugal has earthquakes, relatively poor roads and lots of small sea access locations. A nice little Disaster response ship
It's a fine green water ship.
I would do a clean sheet LHA. Maybe call it an LPH and leave the well deck off again. Speed it up so it can be a CVL or still embark Marines for landing. It needs a smaller crew and be built for less, faster. Same story for almost all our ship types.