The US Navy has been operating nuclear vessels all of my 63+ years.... I find it incredibly hard to believe that we haven't advanced the technology enough to make it cheaper, easier, simpler to incorporate into destroyers/cruisers.
Someone send Elon Musk a complete set of nuclear power text books.
I believe that one of the concepts coming out of Project Nobska was a nuclear powered PF (now FF). Need something bigger than 20MW but maybe not an order of magnitude.
Acknowledging his brilliance at revolutionizing space launch technology and expressing the hope that he might be able to do the same for nuclear propulsion is hardly the same as believing he is the "answer to everything" and is most certainly not on par with the idea that he is the "worst person in the world".
No, YOU are the extremist here. Don't even try to paint anyone else with that brush.
Thanks for the reminder. If you run the numbers, the Strike Cruiser is a good baseline for the new Large Surface Combatant (whatever we call it)…just add 2 x 5” guns, PGS, and lasers. About 4,000 tons worth, by my estimate. FWIW, I’m convinced the 35,000 ton figure was pulled out of thin air.
Were I working the program, I would be running estimates for a nuclear powered ship using a half-Ford plant (1 reactor, 2 screws). Possibly with gas turbines for combat electrical load. There was a reason for the nuclear cruisers - they had the strategic speed to match a CVN. And the events of the last four months should leave nobody with any doubts about the importance of strategic mobility.
I could get on board with that. 1 reactor and say 2 gas turbine emergency gensets. Use the 2 36.5MW motors developed but not used for Zumwalt. I just don’t know what size we are talking with the Ford reactor.
A single A1B reactor would be plenty of power. Bechtel is already building them so the supply chain is in place. And you could very quickly qualify nukes and have them cross-deck from Ford CVNs with standardized qualification cards for the same plant design. One of the reasons nuke platforms are so expensive to operate is because you have to pay the salaries and bonuses of all those nukes. But A1B has a lot of automation which reduces the watchteam size. Totally feasible. Adding some propulsion motors mated to the MRG is a great idea. The same EDGs utilized for emergency core cooling can power the bus for this backup propulsion. And you would want a 450V shore power connection so you can shutdown the Rx in most ports for maintenance and liberty.
Falling out of sector with the CVN is a familiar experience for me. On a Tico CG with a dilapidated propulsion plant is was very hard to keep up.
The C7F conops for a blue water conflict requires a lot of Refueling at Sea in order for the DDGs to maintain a presence down the threat axis. Not having to rely on all that refueling would be a major benefit.
Sorry I missed this comment a bit ago. Was a nuc on the Texas & there were 13 officers, 46 MM's, 36 EM's, 10 IC's & 31 ET's for a grand total of 136. All the enlisted had min 24 months training before hitting the fleet. Thats a lot of $$
The training timeline was similar for sub nukes when I joined the fleet almost twenty years ago. 24 months street to fleet. All came out as Third Classes, with many reupping for Second shortly after getting onboard.
I'd be considering the S9G or S1B submarine reactor plants, because the layout is already for a narrower hull. Make it Nuclear Integrated Electric propulsion, with Gas Turbines or Diesels as secondary generators.
Not so much out of thin air, but likely so the Navy could have space to bargain, when Congress would start to object "that's too costly!" Frankly, all the current capabilities of BBG(X) could be fit into circa 20.000 tons hull.
My late husband was on the USS Pigeon, it was a rain hullship with an emerging transport, that was sored in the middle, there were two made. The other was the Albatros. They were under Salvage and rescue. Not much of either did the perform, but the did some very important work. That is not known to most.
Accountants just add things up. The (bad) decision makers are politicians. Wearing a uniform doesn't exempt you from being a politician. The only politician I can identify with an accounting background is Robert McNamara. A bad one to be sure but what about the thousands that weren't.
McNamara brought us his version of the Planning, Programming, Budgeting (Execution was added later) System from Ford Motor Company, as well as bringing some of his "Ford boys" with him. While it's basically a sensible end-to-end assessment-to-product administrative process its implementation left a lot to be desired. After reading a couple critiques about how PPBS wasn't working so well I met McNamara and his sidekick, Cyrus Vance, at a House Appropriations Defense Subcommittee hearing where he was giving advice. Afterward, I had a chance to talk with them both and asked about whether they had any response to those criticisms about their governance structure. They both gave me a blank stare.
McNamara regarded his later stint at the World Bank as penance which shows what he thought of it on reflection. I was once offered a job doing PPBS for the Jordanian government (probably a USAID grant). I declined because I didn't hate them.
My IMHO, the only way to solve the VLS reload in sea problem is to use a specifically-build arsenal ships, designed from the beginning with an integrated reloading systems. Something like bridge cranes, moving over VLS on side rails; massive and sturdy enough, to firmly fix a missile on trolley, and quickly lower it into cell.
Trying to do this for a standard warships just wouldn't work, due to size and mass of reloading equipment. A specialized arsenal ship - capable of fast reloading - is more efficient solution.
The originally equipped VLS ships had a crane that allowed self-loading....they were removed to provide space for 2 or 4 more cells, and judging from the pictures I recall it was just a standard marine knuckle crane...
Aside from not having the material handling equipment the VLS ships have no lay-down area for reloads to sit pending being reloaded so cross-decking from a resupply ship isn't going to happen. This is a serious, significant design defect, imho. When resupply is at San Diego, Bremerton or maybe Sydney or Brisbane, that's a long way to go.
The collapsible crane was... not a good idea. The long, heavy missile dangling under its arm, was a serious threat to everything around, unless sea was very calm. Also, it required manual aiming of the lifted container into cell.
P.S. That's exactly why I suggest arsenal ships, specifically designed with lay-down areas, bridge-type loading cranes, transfer trolleys and advanced transfer capabilitie.
Because in 1980s all ASROC were of RUR-5 model, fired from trainable "Matchbox" launcher. Which was horizontally-reloaded, and thus represented a lot less headache.
Hopefully, SM3's can be transferred by helo all day. A few precision manipulators later you have a full magazine. Just have 4 copies of a downsized Talos launcher.
I'd like to see some analyses of including a command and control space for a Destroyer Squadron (maybe an old school TACDESRON) or BG command staff in addition to a CIC. If we don't have or can't find a decent 8" gun and supporting fire control, then consider two 127/64 Oto Melara (now Leonardo) guns. Examine the trade space for VLS launchers: various types of missiles, UAVs (decoys, sensors, strike support). Figure out at-sea weapons reloads, possibly with active stabilization to minimize motion on both the BB and the supply ship. I'd suggest a two-reactor design with (at least) five generators.
CDR Sal — another great post. I miss the 70s and the bell bottoms. Met Jimmy in Plains once but that's a story for another day. The accountants keep winning. So does China. --Bill
1. There is no ship that can operate independently. Sure, it could handle surface, anti-surface & power projection, but no ship can solve the ASW problem alone. Despite 2+ decades of ASW as the CNO #1 priority, it has never solved the problem, mostly because it can’t/won’t accept any new solutions. . A BBG/CGN cannot operate without a significant ASW defense team: SSN, FFG w/ helos.
2. While I love the idea of an 8”gun (my 1st class midshipman cruise was on USS LITTLE ROCK), what is its real value? What surface vessel is the target? Sure, shore bombardment for an Amphib landing, but those won’t happen without a CVN air wing in support. One BBG/CGN is no where near what Ike or McArthur used in WW2/Korea.
3. Where is the anti-drone swarm defense (well on any ship)? A hundred drone swarm will make a cheap kill on a CSG let alone a single BBG/CGN.
I just don’t see a BBGN/CGN as a power projection vessel. Maybe for PR but not a real threat. If the USN had carried through with Arsenal Ship with 1-2 Aegis ships (launch & control the missiles) & 3-4 ASW ships, that would provide power projection. Those escalate the same number a CGN requires. Still missing the massive anti-drone capability that the WW2 ships had to protect against kamakazees (40mm,20MM, 50cal guns). 1-2 VISS & 1-2 HELIOS mounts are insufficient
"If the USN had carried through with Arsenal Ship with 1-2 Aegis ships (launch & control the missiles)..."
OK, so I've been confused. I thought that the BBG was basically an updated Arsenal Ship. I didn't realize that the Arsenal Ship was so absent in missile control. Thank you.
"Still missing the massive anti-drone capability that the WW2 ships had to protect against kamakazees (40mm,20MM, 50cal guns)."
Yes, but by the end of WW2 those AAA calibers were judged to be obsolete, hence the development of the failed 3"/70 and 5"/54.
Yes “obsolete”’because then anti-ship missiles were all the craze. Now drones are.
Arsenal Ship was really a new version of AE, but badly marketted. It would have allowed the CG/DDG to fire up to 256 missiles before having to fire any of their own.
"Yes “obsolete”’because then anti-ship missiles were all the craze."
My understanding is that this USN judgement on the smaller AAA calibers was made before there was any such "craze." The craze, if you want to call it that, came out of the preceding USN judgement on these calibers and on the development of air launched anti-shipping missiles (for which there was as yet no Phalanx-type target tracking). The 3"/70 and 5"/54 were for in development before the Talos, Terrier, and Tartar.
I’m struggling to envision how many drones a DDG (for example) would need, especially if they were 1on1 (like missiles). My imagination is a kind it A-10, launched from a DDG (VSTOL) that could shoot down multiple drones. Would a few Apaches work? Volume to carry and volume of fires at range to sufficiently attrite the swarm to level that leakers could handled by CIWS/HELIOS
Also the important detail - the arsenal ship could be designed from the beginning with systems and equipment for fast in-sea reloading of the VLS. So the strike group could circumvent the problem of their own VLS being slow to reload by using arsenal ship, specifically equipped for this job.
Having supplied ordnance, reloaded ordnance and observed the complications of at-sea reloading, reloading any VLS battery would be at the top of my “Never Do” list. Aside from the safety issues, the time needed is excruciatingly long. The ship would be in harm’s way with little defense capability and the crew would be worn so tired that dangerous errors would be very probable.
A good size class of Arsenal Ships would allow combatants to hold their ordnance and when the AS is empty bring in another and send the empty to port for a safe reload.
I have no experience in this, but what about arsenal ship specifically designed for in-sea reloading? Imagine an arsenal ship with something like bridge-type cranes running over VLS on side rails. Each crane is massive and sturdy enough, to firmly hold the missile on its trolley and lower it into VLS.
For a standard warship, such arrangement would be prohibitedly heavy & bulky. But for specifically designed arsenal ship - designed to accomodate such equipment - it won't be a big problem.
P.S. Another possibility is to ditch the VLS for arsenal ship and use Mk-70 containerized erector launchers on it. Those could be reloaded horizontally; all you need is a trolley to move missile to launcher, and multiple launchers could be reloaded at the same time (if you have enough trolleys).
I understand your concept, nd it could be n answer if AS were produced. But here’s my question, why build a ship to resupply AS when, instead, the USN could build more AS so they can be swapped out when they have fired their ordnance and the empty one return to a safe port for safe and rapid rearming?
Have you watched an underway replenishment video? Whether using VERTREP or CONREP, the process is not “quick” and it’s fraught with safety hazards. My estimate is 20 minutes per missile. (3/hr * 100 missiles = 33 hrs.).
Why bring a 17 billion dollar ship close to shore when for 40-50 million you could load 10 20 foot containers on an overlord USV each with 2 Himars boxes loaded with the new 120mm rocket. 600 rounds, same as a 127/62 with higher rate of fire, guided rounds, and larger warhead. We need to stop the madness and play to win.
That is not sexy enough for the status quo. Example: I worked on the LCS proposal. I was amazed how a slight comment I made eliminated one of the options in contention. The comment: “ Your proposal meets every functional requirement, but it doesn’t look like a warship. “
Think about that. Because It didn’t LOOK like a warship, it was rejected. That was not my point, but it was taken to heart because that’s how USN PMs think.
Couple additives. (1) I was running the Navy's cats-and-dogs Other Procurement account when the Clinton Peace Dividend came along after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Navy cut out 19 ships and submarines. As the guy running a backfit account and other stuff (small boats, nuclear reactors, sonobuoys, Seabees equipment, aircraft control and training equipment, shipboard ATMs (literally) and spares, I suggested we should fully outfit stuff we kept (which was all underfunded) and slow down on new major equipment procurements. Cheaper to use savings to fully arm our retained force structure. Naturally, that suggestion was not selected.
(2) As to powering a large surface combatant, when I ran the Navy RDT&E account, I had the opportunity to redirect a few dollars into what is now the entire small nuclear reactor business. Idea was to create fusion from a non-radioactive element and put the entire system in a shipping container and power an auxiliary at 30 percent faster than flank speed indefinitely. 30 years ago, the scientist running that project couldn't quite crack net-zero power before he passed away, but that technology is near reality. I'm guessing small nuclear reactors will be nowhere near the cost of our aircraft carrier and submarine reactors, making large, more capable surface combatants and auxiliaries practical. So I'd suggest any new or reworked cruiser design ("battleship" but not really, and yes, CDR, I like 8-inch guns--self defense weapons won't be able to stop incoming shells very easily) include the capability to swap out its entire engineering space for something better when it's ready.
I would love to see a fleet of BB's but it still comes down to what capability can you get in as many hulls as possible with a limited/fixed budget and a fast approaching war. We can build a limited number of super-ships that have and do everything but with only a few ships, probably won't be able to fight in multiple places of the Western Pacific at once in a long distance future war.
I think CVA's are still relevant and will absolutely be required in a future WestPac Navy war, so X amount of the shipbuilding budget has to be for new CVA's and air wings. Like our CVA's today, the super-ship fleet will always have one laid up for maintenance availability, again reducing overall fleet capability and availability.
In tomorrows war, the familiar "fight with what you got" will ring true and that needs to include our initial military losses from the "surprise" attacks. China will focus on inflicting as much possible damage they can on our WestPac deployed ships and ports like Pearl, San Diego, Bremington and even Norfolk to critically reduce our capability to response in the first three months. If the attack occurs on "Holiday Routine" early mornings, our ships will be like sitting ducks to multiple waves of drones and missiles launched from offshore Chinese commercial vessels innocently traveling in international waters.
Having a medium high and a medium low of ships is probably the best route for the US. surface combat ships. FF's for patrol/convoy escort equipped for ASW and AAW warfare. Upgraded DD's built in mass to take advantage of multi-year production efficiencies, reduced production schedules and procurement discounts. Add the mW laser and hypersonic (if combat value is feasible)
Once you have a ship capable of fighting sustained multi-day ASW/AAW battles in sufficient qualities, then you can add in the magic "force multiplier" of multiple surface escort drones attached to each DD. These game changing AI controlled vessels carrying weapons and sensors for ASW, AAW, Surface PSW, Anti-drone, EW, recon, decoys, etc. and you get the equivalent or more of a BB's fleet combat power at a fraction of the cost. This also includes reduced vulnerability due to greatly increased targeting requirements for the Chinese, reduced combat capability losses due to combat damage and greater number of potential attack vectors. China and others, currently holds our fleet "at risk" due to overwhelming limited ship defense weapons loadouts. Spreading multiple weapons over many DD's and drone escorts would reduce this "risk" and turn the advantage back to the US.
One minor problem, as I've pointed out before, is a good multipurpose frigate is a mini-Burke, and Congress/taxpayers balk at that. "Why not get a Burke?"
Cannot work! Too many leaders need to change how they think. Besides, getting command of on of your AI-controlled vessels would never lead to command of a “real ship” and advancement to O6/Flag. Nope, it would give dead end command jobs to a lot of LCDRs. That’s how selection boards think, and PMs.
In my world, the DDG Capt. Has to have command of any drone vessels attached. Like the AIR dept. With its helos, the AI drones would just be another dept. Or assigned to existing depts That melds onto the ships overall mission, strategy and tactics. They would just have a much bigger and better SR picture, more toys to play with and greater range to ID and engage threats Any directions, sub-missions or actions would be originate thru the ships Tactical operation division. Not knowledgeable of how they currently operate but may need to be expanded and revamped. With AI drones deployed around the ship, their sensor, weapons engagement area may now cover 5-8 X the ships sensor coverage. Mission specific drones would be assigned and operated by the ships departments. Flying drones to AIR , Decoy/ Ew to EW , ETC.
Let us not forget that in D.C., reality and/or future needs take a back seat to politics. Back in 1959, William Minshall (R-OH) tried to defund Bomarc, Clarence Cannon (D-MO) tried to defund a conventional carrier, AND William Proxmire (D-WI) tried to defund the latest and greatest nuclear carrier. This was with an obvious and open adversary. And then, of course there was the "cruiser gap" with the Soviets quickly followed by the kerfuffle over whether the newly launched Moskva was a cruiser pretending to be a carrier, or vice versa. I do hope we get a BB-something.
I am, in general, in agreement with your ideas for an improved NGFS ship.
that being said, I have some other thoughts, which I have expanded from a previous version posted on another forum:
I agree that any such ship needs to be a nuke, and should have precision targeting tube artillery capability for those times when 155mm, or 203mm of incoming destruction, with 'minute of HMMV' accuracy, and 3 minute response time from 'call for fire' to 'on the way!' will do the same job but better, and with less collateral damage, compared to even a "Ginsu" HELLFIRE, much less a GLSDB or other surface to surface strike missile
yes, it means that the ultra long range tube rounds need to be usable, if not completely mature.
I will note that my personal preference would be to standardize on the 155mm tubes, with a selective auto-loading mechanism, capable of mixing one of 4 different semi fixed powder charges - equivalent to Charge 1, Charge 4, Charge 7 and Supercharge - enclosed in waterproof, combustible casings, to accurately utilize the full range of current US and NATO developed 155mm ammunition as the M-109 and M-777 class systems, with add on Precision Packages as needed.
If the target can't be reached with a precision guided munition from one of the current or nearing deployment extended range rounds, then something on the order of the Ground Launched Small Diameter Bomb (GLSDB) system would fill the gap between tube fire support and one of the larger strike missiles.
The limitation of the 203 mm rounds is two fold - there has been no real development done on that caliber since the M-110s were removed from US service four decades ago (about a decade after the USS Newport News was taken out of service); and while the 'lessons learned' in the development of the 155mm rounds will generally be helpful, I'm betting that the increased size and especially increasing the mass by a factor of at least 2 and possibly 3, would require significant engineering effort to ensure accurate, repeatable, clustering of rounds. I'll also note that the figures on the Mk 71 do not appear to show any range advantage over the 155mm rounds
You can get more topside armament if you switch to a single reactor. Less upfront $ and a lot fewer NUC's to employ. Speaking as a former nuc on the Texas. Lots of other power options to keep the lights on and some patrol speed to boot.
Former Cruiser sailor here. We were the AAWC command ship for our CVBG in the late 90s and the USS Mississippi (CGN-40) was in our battle group. Our ship had to detach early from carrier escort and return from deployment early because we could not keep up with our CVN anymore due to an Engineering casualty that could not be fixed outside of a Shipyard availability. The ship that took our place- the CGN that did not have to worry about not being able to keep up with the carrier.
Would I consider nuclear power for this application? Yes. The operational constraint removal and electrical power generation are worth considering
Are there limits to it as well? Yes. The problem with any nuclear program in the Navy is it gets haunted by NAVSEA 08, who can and will take over the program if there is nobody willing to push them back. They also can make it a much longer production process to get the ships in the water, and the VLS cells on the battleline.
I'm wondering if a situation along the lines of BAINBRIDGE and LEAHY, where we have a nuclear and conventional plant supporting similar weapons and sensors would fulfill the mandate to get these hulls building ASAP, while also having the ability to add nuclear propulsion.
The other request: add in space for embarked troops, up to a company sized force. I've got a feeling that having embarked troops gives the platform additional operational flexibility.
The US Navy has been operating nuclear vessels all of my 63+ years.... I find it incredibly hard to believe that we haven't advanced the technology enough to make it cheaper, easier, simpler to incorporate into destroyers/cruisers.
Someone send Elon Musk a complete set of nuclear power text books.
They were working on mini reactors for FEMA you don’t need Musk
Mini reactors are in the 10-20 megawatt range, the Virginia class CGN reactors had an output of about 300mw.... totally different animals.
I believe that one of the concepts coming out of Project Nobska was a nuclear powered PF (now FF). Need something bigger than 20MW but maybe not an order of magnitude.
They said - I can't believe we can't make it "cheaper, smaller.." - GET MUSK!
I said - we already do smaller - you don't need the worst person in the world for this project - and gave an example
you said - that is not the perfect example for this application
well played.
That you think Musk is the "worst person in the world" invalidates your opinion about everything.
Well played.
The same could be said of those of you who think he is the answer to everything.
Acknowledging his brilliance at revolutionizing space launch technology and expressing the hope that he might be able to do the same for nuclear propulsion is hardly the same as believing he is the "answer to everything" and is most certainly not on par with the idea that he is the "worst person in the world".
No, YOU are the extremist here. Don't even try to paint anyone else with that brush.
We won't because NAVSEA08 doesn't want to lose their record of perfect safety operations.
Can't have a mishap if ya never cut steel!
Steel is very unforgiving.
Former welder here LOL
Thanks for the reminder. If you run the numbers, the Strike Cruiser is a good baseline for the new Large Surface Combatant (whatever we call it)…just add 2 x 5” guns, PGS, and lasers. About 4,000 tons worth, by my estimate. FWIW, I’m convinced the 35,000 ton figure was pulled out of thin air.
Were I working the program, I would be running estimates for a nuclear powered ship using a half-Ford plant (1 reactor, 2 screws). Possibly with gas turbines for combat electrical load. There was a reason for the nuclear cruisers - they had the strategic speed to match a CVN. And the events of the last four months should leave nobody with any doubts about the importance of strategic mobility.
I could get on board with that. 1 reactor and say 2 gas turbine emergency gensets. Use the 2 36.5MW motors developed but not used for Zumwalt. I just don’t know what size we are talking with the Ford reactor.
A single A1B reactor would be plenty of power. Bechtel is already building them so the supply chain is in place. And you could very quickly qualify nukes and have them cross-deck from Ford CVNs with standardized qualification cards for the same plant design. One of the reasons nuke platforms are so expensive to operate is because you have to pay the salaries and bonuses of all those nukes. But A1B has a lot of automation which reduces the watchteam size. Totally feasible. Adding some propulsion motors mated to the MRG is a great idea. The same EDGs utilized for emergency core cooling can power the bus for this backup propulsion. And you would want a 450V shore power connection so you can shutdown the Rx in most ports for maintenance and liberty.
Falling out of sector with the CVN is a familiar experience for me. On a Tico CG with a dilapidated propulsion plant is was very hard to keep up.
The C7F conops for a blue water conflict requires a lot of Refueling at Sea in order for the DDGs to maintain a presence down the threat axis. Not having to rely on all that refueling would be a major benefit.
Sorry I missed this comment a bit ago. Was a nuc on the Texas & there were 13 officers, 46 MM's, 36 EM's, 10 IC's & 31 ET's for a grand total of 136. All the enlisted had min 24 months training before hitting the fleet. Thats a lot of $$
The training timeline was similar for sub nukes when I joined the fleet almost twenty years ago. 24 months street to fleet. All came out as Third Classes, with many reupping for Second shortly after getting onboard.
I'd be considering the S9G or S1B submarine reactor plants, because the layout is already for a narrower hull. Make it Nuclear Integrated Electric propulsion, with Gas Turbines or Diesels as secondary generators.
Not so much out of thin air, but likely so the Navy could have space to bargain, when Congress would start to object "that's too costly!" Frankly, all the current capabilities of BBG(X) could be fit into circa 20.000 tons hull.
My late husband was on the USS Pigeon, it was a rain hullship with an emerging transport, that was sored in the middle, there were two made. The other was the Albatros. They were under Salvage and rescue. Not much of either did the perform, but the did some very important work. That is not known to most.
Accountants just add things up. The (bad) decision makers are politicians. Wearing a uniform doesn't exempt you from being a politician. The only politician I can identify with an accounting background is Robert McNamara. A bad one to be sure but what about the thousands that weren't.
McNamara brought us his version of the Planning, Programming, Budgeting (Execution was added later) System from Ford Motor Company, as well as bringing some of his "Ford boys" with him. While it's basically a sensible end-to-end assessment-to-product administrative process its implementation left a lot to be desired. After reading a couple critiques about how PPBS wasn't working so well I met McNamara and his sidekick, Cyrus Vance, at a House Appropriations Defense Subcommittee hearing where he was giving advice. Afterward, I had a chance to talk with them both and asked about whether they had any response to those criticisms about their governance structure. They both gave me a blank stare.
McNamara regarded his later stint at the World Bank as penance which shows what he thought of it on reflection. I was once offered a job doing PPBS for the Jordanian government (probably a USAID grant). I declined because I didn't hate them.
Looks incredibly sexy but I hope the toilets flush.
Gravity never loses. It may not be pretty but fish love it.
Well Nuc plants and gravity toilets work LOL
Is this the end of the VLS?
No, this is the older plans remember. And you're going to be wanting probably 4 twin-arm launchers if we bring those back.
As long as it can be reloaded at sea
My IMHO, the only way to solve the VLS reload in sea problem is to use a specifically-build arsenal ships, designed from the beginning with an integrated reloading systems. Something like bridge cranes, moving over VLS on side rails; massive and sturdy enough, to firmly fix a missile on trolley, and quickly lower it into cell.
Trying to do this for a standard warships just wouldn't work, due to size and mass of reloading equipment. A specialized arsenal ship - capable of fast reloading - is more efficient solution.
Built on an upgraded armored Bulk carrier hull or Container hull?
Nope, on military hull of reasonable size & cost. Civilian hulls are too fragile for military actions.
Yes I agree and to armor them probably would cost as much as a new Arsenal ship.
The originally equipped VLS ships had a crane that allowed self-loading....they were removed to provide space for 2 or 4 more cells, and judging from the pictures I recall it was just a standard marine knuckle crane...
Aside from not having the material handling equipment the VLS ships have no lay-down area for reloads to sit pending being reloaded so cross-decking from a resupply ship isn't going to happen. This is a serious, significant design defect, imho. When resupply is at San Diego, Bremerton or maybe Sydney or Brisbane, that's a long way to go.
The collapsible crane was... not a good idea. The long, heavy missile dangling under its arm, was a serious threat to everything around, unless sea was very calm. Also, it required manual aiming of the lifted container into cell.
P.S. That's exactly why I suggest arsenal ships, specifically designed with lay-down areas, bridge-type loading cranes, transfer trolleys and advanced transfer capabilitie.
In 1980 we reloaded ASROC at sea. Why is something we did routinely in the past impossible now?
Because in 1980s all ASROC were of RUR-5 model, fired from trainable "Matchbox" launcher. Which was horizontally-reloaded, and thus represented a lot less headache.
If we could do it then, why can't we do it now?
There it is!
Hopefully, SM3's can be transferred by helo all day. A few precision manipulators later you have a full magazine. Just have 4 copies of a downsized Talos launcher.
I think its really the rebirth of the destroyer tender.
We need those to maintain the destroyers....but need missile colliers to carry the missiles.
I'd like to see some analyses of including a command and control space for a Destroyer Squadron (maybe an old school TACDESRON) or BG command staff in addition to a CIC. If we don't have or can't find a decent 8" gun and supporting fire control, then consider two 127/64 Oto Melara (now Leonardo) guns. Examine the trade space for VLS launchers: various types of missiles, UAVs (decoys, sensors, strike support). Figure out at-sea weapons reloads, possibly with active stabilization to minimize motion on both the BB and the supply ship. I'd suggest a two-reactor design with (at least) five generators.
Yeah, I don't want to waste money and time on guns. If the 127/64 is the better dual purpose gun use it and be done.
CDR Sal — another great post. I miss the 70s and the bell bottoms. Met Jimmy in Plains once but that's a story for another day. The accountants keep winning. So does China. --Bill
Drove thru Plains on my way from NTC Great Lakes to NTC Orlando. As a CA kid it was pretty shocking.
OMG, I bet. Did you write your congressman with a special request? I'd take swaying palm trees over sheets of ice any day.
1. There is no ship that can operate independently. Sure, it could handle surface, anti-surface & power projection, but no ship can solve the ASW problem alone. Despite 2+ decades of ASW as the CNO #1 priority, it has never solved the problem, mostly because it can’t/won’t accept any new solutions. . A BBG/CGN cannot operate without a significant ASW defense team: SSN, FFG w/ helos.
2. While I love the idea of an 8”gun (my 1st class midshipman cruise was on USS LITTLE ROCK), what is its real value? What surface vessel is the target? Sure, shore bombardment for an Amphib landing, but those won’t happen without a CVN air wing in support. One BBG/CGN is no where near what Ike or McArthur used in WW2/Korea.
3. Where is the anti-drone swarm defense (well on any ship)? A hundred drone swarm will make a cheap kill on a CSG let alone a single BBG/CGN.
I just don’t see a BBGN/CGN as a power projection vessel. Maybe for PR but not a real threat. If the USN had carried through with Arsenal Ship with 1-2 Aegis ships (launch & control the missiles) & 3-4 ASW ships, that would provide power projection. Those escalate the same number a CGN requires. Still missing the massive anti-drone capability that the WW2 ships had to protect against kamakazees (40mm,20MM, 50cal guns). 1-2 VISS & 1-2 HELIOS mounts are insufficient
Money would be better spent building a real air wing & frigates.
"If the USN had carried through with Arsenal Ship with 1-2 Aegis ships (launch & control the missiles)..."
OK, so I've been confused. I thought that the BBG was basically an updated Arsenal Ship. I didn't realize that the Arsenal Ship was so absent in missile control. Thank you.
"Still missing the massive anti-drone capability that the WW2 ships had to protect against kamakazees (40mm,20MM, 50cal guns)."
Yes, but by the end of WW2 those AAA calibers were judged to be obsolete, hence the development of the failed 3"/70 and 5"/54.
Yes “obsolete”’because then anti-ship missiles were all the craze. Now drones are.
Arsenal Ship was really a new version of AE, but badly marketted. It would have allowed the CG/DDG to fire up to 256 missiles before having to fire any of their own.
"Yes “obsolete”’because then anti-ship missiles were all the craze."
My understanding is that this USN judgement on the smaller AAA calibers was made before there was any such "craze." The craze, if you want to call it that, came out of the preceding USN judgement on these calibers and on the development of air launched anti-shipping missiles (for which there was as yet no Phalanx-type target tracking). The 3"/70 and 5"/54 were for in development before the Talos, Terrier, and Tartar.
What we might really need are anti-drone drones.
I’m struggling to envision how many drones a DDG (for example) would need, especially if they were 1on1 (like missiles). My imagination is a kind it A-10, launched from a DDG (VSTOL) that could shoot down multiple drones. Would a few Apaches work? Volume to carry and volume of fires at range to sufficiently attrite the swarm to level that leakers could handled by CIWS/HELIOS
"I’m struggling to envision how many drones a DDG..."
Me too. It was a rhetorical statement, meant to prod discussion. OTOH drones can swarm Apaches too.
And now we have MUSVs. Cheaper, faster, whack a mole.
Yes, the MUSV is a larger version of the 1yo MASC program.
Love the concept. It is a piece of what LCS modules were supposed to do. USN never bought the promised modules.
So, how do these MUSV get brought to the theater, what is the command ship, how are they refueled & rearmed?
They gonin their own. The mdusvs and iverlord usvs went from the west coast to Japan, then Australia and back.
Also the important detail - the arsenal ship could be designed from the beginning with systems and equipment for fast in-sea reloading of the VLS. So the strike group could circumvent the problem of their own VLS being slow to reload by using arsenal ship, specifically equipped for this job.
Having supplied ordnance, reloaded ordnance and observed the complications of at-sea reloading, reloading any VLS battery would be at the top of my “Never Do” list. Aside from the safety issues, the time needed is excruciatingly long. The ship would be in harm’s way with little defense capability and the crew would be worn so tired that dangerous errors would be very probable.
A good size class of Arsenal Ships would allow combatants to hold their ordnance and when the AS is empty bring in another and send the empty to port for a safe reload.
I have no experience in this, but what about arsenal ship specifically designed for in-sea reloading? Imagine an arsenal ship with something like bridge-type cranes running over VLS on side rails. Each crane is massive and sturdy enough, to firmly hold the missile on its trolley and lower it into VLS.
For a standard warship, such arrangement would be prohibitedly heavy & bulky. But for specifically designed arsenal ship - designed to accomodate such equipment - it won't be a big problem.
P.S. Another possibility is to ditch the VLS for arsenal ship and use Mk-70 containerized erector launchers on it. Those could be reloaded horizontally; all you need is a trolley to move missile to launcher, and multiple launchers could be reloaded at the same time (if you have enough trolleys).
I understand your concept, nd it could be n answer if AS were produced. But here’s my question, why build a ship to resupply AS when, instead, the USN could build more AS so they can be swapped out when they have fired their ordnance and the empty one return to a safe port for safe and rapid rearming?
And you can do that ashore, load them to a container feeder, and then drop them on USVs quickly.
Have you watched an underway replenishment video? Whether using VERTREP or CONREP, the process is not “quick” and it’s fraught with safety hazards. My estimate is 20 minutes per missile. (3/hr * 100 missiles = 33 hrs.).
Nothing quick.
Same with USVs, except cheaper, and more numerous. Mk 70 launchers are going to be your fastest way to reload by a significant margin.
Why bring a 17 billion dollar ship close to shore when for 40-50 million you could load 10 20 foot containers on an overlord USV each with 2 Himars boxes loaded with the new 120mm rocket. 600 rounds, same as a 127/62 with higher rate of fire, guided rounds, and larger warhead. We need to stop the madness and play to win.
That is not sexy enough for the status quo. Example: I worked on the LCS proposal. I was amazed how a slight comment I made eliminated one of the options in contention. The comment: “ Your proposal meets every functional requirement, but it doesn’t look like a warship. “
Think about that. Because It didn’t LOOK like a warship, it was rejected. That was not my point, but it was taken to heart because that’s how USN PMs think.
Couple additives. (1) I was running the Navy's cats-and-dogs Other Procurement account when the Clinton Peace Dividend came along after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Navy cut out 19 ships and submarines. As the guy running a backfit account and other stuff (small boats, nuclear reactors, sonobuoys, Seabees equipment, aircraft control and training equipment, shipboard ATMs (literally) and spares, I suggested we should fully outfit stuff we kept (which was all underfunded) and slow down on new major equipment procurements. Cheaper to use savings to fully arm our retained force structure. Naturally, that suggestion was not selected.
(2) As to powering a large surface combatant, when I ran the Navy RDT&E account, I had the opportunity to redirect a few dollars into what is now the entire small nuclear reactor business. Idea was to create fusion from a non-radioactive element and put the entire system in a shipping container and power an auxiliary at 30 percent faster than flank speed indefinitely. 30 years ago, the scientist running that project couldn't quite crack net-zero power before he passed away, but that technology is near reality. I'm guessing small nuclear reactors will be nowhere near the cost of our aircraft carrier and submarine reactors, making large, more capable surface combatants and auxiliaries practical. So I'd suggest any new or reworked cruiser design ("battleship" but not really, and yes, CDR, I like 8-inch guns--self defense weapons won't be able to stop incoming shells very easily) include the capability to swap out its entire engineering space for something better when it's ready.
I would love to see a fleet of BB's but it still comes down to what capability can you get in as many hulls as possible with a limited/fixed budget and a fast approaching war. We can build a limited number of super-ships that have and do everything but with only a few ships, probably won't be able to fight in multiple places of the Western Pacific at once in a long distance future war.
I think CVA's are still relevant and will absolutely be required in a future WestPac Navy war, so X amount of the shipbuilding budget has to be for new CVA's and air wings. Like our CVA's today, the super-ship fleet will always have one laid up for maintenance availability, again reducing overall fleet capability and availability.
In tomorrows war, the familiar "fight with what you got" will ring true and that needs to include our initial military losses from the "surprise" attacks. China will focus on inflicting as much possible damage they can on our WestPac deployed ships and ports like Pearl, San Diego, Bremington and even Norfolk to critically reduce our capability to response in the first three months. If the attack occurs on "Holiday Routine" early mornings, our ships will be like sitting ducks to multiple waves of drones and missiles launched from offshore Chinese commercial vessels innocently traveling in international waters.
Having a medium high and a medium low of ships is probably the best route for the US. surface combat ships. FF's for patrol/convoy escort equipped for ASW and AAW warfare. Upgraded DD's built in mass to take advantage of multi-year production efficiencies, reduced production schedules and procurement discounts. Add the mW laser and hypersonic (if combat value is feasible)
Once you have a ship capable of fighting sustained multi-day ASW/AAW battles in sufficient qualities, then you can add in the magic "force multiplier" of multiple surface escort drones attached to each DD. These game changing AI controlled vessels carrying weapons and sensors for ASW, AAW, Surface PSW, Anti-drone, EW, recon, decoys, etc. and you get the equivalent or more of a BB's fleet combat power at a fraction of the cost. This also includes reduced vulnerability due to greatly increased targeting requirements for the Chinese, reduced combat capability losses due to combat damage and greater number of potential attack vectors. China and others, currently holds our fleet "at risk" due to overwhelming limited ship defense weapons loadouts. Spreading multiple weapons over many DD's and drone escorts would reduce this "risk" and turn the advantage back to the US.
One minor problem, as I've pointed out before, is a good multipurpose frigate is a mini-Burke, and Congress/taxpayers balk at that. "Why not get a Burke?"
I agree.
Cannot work! Too many leaders need to change how they think. Besides, getting command of on of your AI-controlled vessels would never lead to command of a “real ship” and advancement to O6/Flag. Nope, it would give dead end command jobs to a lot of LCDRs. That’s how selection boards think, and PMs.
In my world, the DDG Capt. Has to have command of any drone vessels attached. Like the AIR dept. With its helos, the AI drones would just be another dept. Or assigned to existing depts That melds onto the ships overall mission, strategy and tactics. They would just have a much bigger and better SR picture, more toys to play with and greater range to ID and engage threats Any directions, sub-missions or actions would be originate thru the ships Tactical operation division. Not knowledgeable of how they currently operate but may need to be expanded and revamped. With AI drones deployed around the ship, their sensor, weapons engagement area may now cover 5-8 X the ships sensor coverage. Mission specific drones would be assigned and operated by the ships departments. Flying drones to AIR , Decoy/ Ew to EW , ETC.
Let us not forget that in D.C., reality and/or future needs take a back seat to politics. Back in 1959, William Minshall (R-OH) tried to defund Bomarc, Clarence Cannon (D-MO) tried to defund a conventional carrier, AND William Proxmire (D-WI) tried to defund the latest and greatest nuclear carrier. This was with an obvious and open adversary. And then, of course there was the "cruiser gap" with the Soviets quickly followed by the kerfuffle over whether the newly launched Moskva was a cruiser pretending to be a carrier, or vice versa. I do hope we get a BB-something.
Sir:
I am, in general, in agreement with your ideas for an improved NGFS ship.
that being said, I have some other thoughts, which I have expanded from a previous version posted on another forum:
I agree that any such ship needs to be a nuke, and should have precision targeting tube artillery capability for those times when 155mm, or 203mm of incoming destruction, with 'minute of HMMV' accuracy, and 3 minute response time from 'call for fire' to 'on the way!' will do the same job but better, and with less collateral damage, compared to even a "Ginsu" HELLFIRE, much less a GLSDB or other surface to surface strike missile
yes, it means that the ultra long range tube rounds need to be usable, if not completely mature.
I will note that my personal preference would be to standardize on the 155mm tubes, with a selective auto-loading mechanism, capable of mixing one of 4 different semi fixed powder charges - equivalent to Charge 1, Charge 4, Charge 7 and Supercharge - enclosed in waterproof, combustible casings, to accurately utilize the full range of current US and NATO developed 155mm ammunition as the M-109 and M-777 class systems, with add on Precision Packages as needed.
If the target can't be reached with a precision guided munition from one of the current or nearing deployment extended range rounds, then something on the order of the Ground Launched Small Diameter Bomb (GLSDB) system would fill the gap between tube fire support and one of the larger strike missiles.
The limitation of the 203 mm rounds is two fold - there has been no real development done on that caliber since the M-110s were removed from US service four decades ago (about a decade after the USS Newport News was taken out of service); and while the 'lessons learned' in the development of the 155mm rounds will generally be helpful, I'm betting that the increased size and especially increasing the mass by a factor of at least 2 and possibly 3, would require significant engineering effort to ensure accurate, repeatable, clustering of rounds. I'll also note that the figures on the Mk 71 do not appear to show any range advantage over the 155mm rounds
Just quad ER-GMLRS and use the best dual purpose gun primarily for use on the water.
You can get more topside armament if you switch to a single reactor. Less upfront $ and a lot fewer NUC's to employ. Speaking as a former nuc on the Texas. Lots of other power options to keep the lights on and some patrol speed to boot.
Former Cruiser sailor here. We were the AAWC command ship for our CVBG in the late 90s and the USS Mississippi (CGN-40) was in our battle group. Our ship had to detach early from carrier escort and return from deployment early because we could not keep up with our CVN anymore due to an Engineering casualty that could not be fixed outside of a Shipyard availability. The ship that took our place- the CGN that did not have to worry about not being able to keep up with the carrier.
Would I consider nuclear power for this application? Yes. The operational constraint removal and electrical power generation are worth considering
Are there limits to it as well? Yes. The problem with any nuclear program in the Navy is it gets haunted by NAVSEA 08, who can and will take over the program if there is nobody willing to push them back. They also can make it a much longer production process to get the ships in the water, and the VLS cells on the battleline.
I'm wondering if a situation along the lines of BAINBRIDGE and LEAHY, where we have a nuclear and conventional plant supporting similar weapons and sensors would fulfill the mandate to get these hulls building ASAP, while also having the ability to add nuclear propulsion.
The other request: add in space for embarked troops, up to a company sized force. I've got a feeling that having embarked troops gives the platform additional operational flexibility.