Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Crucially Important Questions..

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Crucially Important Questions..

    Wondering if anyone on the board can help with the following questions - as I have drawn a bit of a blank...

    1) What's the likely minimum length of deck (and tonnage) of a vessel capable of operating an a/craft in Typhoon power to weight class in?
    a) CATOBAR configuration.
    b) STOBAR configuration with a ski-jump.

    2) In laymans terms, what are some of the key differences between "commercial" build ships and those built to military specifications? I ask because HMS Ocean cost £150 million - which seems something of a bargain for a 20,000 tonne helicopter carrier. How much would a "commercial" build quality compromise the effectiveness/safety of such a vessel?

    3) In the very hypothetical case of NATO collasping and the EU nations withdrawing all support cooperation with the USN - would this affect the force structure of the USN? Are there roles that the USN uses the allied fleets for that would need new hulls built for the USN?

    Many thanks in advance for your help.

  • #2
    I doubt if Ill be of much help. But Ill give it another shot. Albeit shorter(ie leaving out many,many details) due to a malfunction that rendered my first post to cyberspace limbo. Sorry.

    1.) A CdeG sized ship would be the absolute minimum although neither very efficient or effective IMHO.

    2.) Ive asked the same question myself. Little was forthcoming. And I cant find that.

    But from what I remember safety and normal operations werent a concern.

    However if I remember correctly damage-control features and the ability to absorb battle-damage were the larger issues.

    3.)The Cold War is over as can be seen by the changing order of battle of most European/NATO nations including the US.

    The roles forseen for the NATO nations no longer exist and many of the forces earmarked for such contingencies are dwindling in any event..

    However having allied partners is useful on many levels for ANY nation.

    Nor would I like to see this hypothetical event occur.

    But hypothetically speaking I believe you would see much scrambling on the European side to quickly build more forces,ie "new hulls", to make up for the capabilities those nations "use" the USN for.

    In fact a better question might be what if the US/USN withdrew "all support cooperation"?

    So my short answer to both questions is stilll no and no.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by rickusn View Post
      I doubt if Ill be of much help. But Ill give it another shot. Albeit shorter(ie leaving out many,many details) due to a malfunction that rendered my first post to cyberspace limbo. Sorry.
      Happens to the best of us!

      1.) A CdeG sized ship would be the absolute minimum although neither very efficient or effective IMHO.
      That's about what I thought. In terms of tonnage, would replacing the nuke power on the CdeG with convential power save or add to the overall weight?
      I thought it might reduce the weight (removing all the heavy shielding etc).
      2.) Ive asked the same question myself. Little was forthcoming. And I cant find that.

      But from what I remember safety and normal operations werent a concern.

      However if I remember correctly damage-control features and the ability to absorb battle-damage were the larger issues.
      Thanks - that makes sense. So commercial builds are a bit of a gamble. Fine under normal operating conditions, but more vulnerable if they are actually hit by enemy fire.

      The Colossus class were built during the war to commercial standards and went on to serve for a long time.

      I suppose the compromise is perhaps justified for a well protected warship - one that will generally operate behind a shield of other warships.

      3.)The Cold War is over as can be seen by the changing order of battle of most European/NATO nations including the US.

      The roles forseen for the NATO nations no longer exist and many of the forces earmarked for such contingencies are dwindling in any event..

      However having allied partners is useful on many levels for ANY nation.

      But hypothetically speaking I believe you would see much scrambling on the European side to quickly build more forces,ie "new hulls", to make up for the capabilities those nations "use" the USN for.

      In fact a better question might be what if the US/USN withdrew "all support cooperation"?

      So my short answer to both questions is stilll no and no.
      Fair comment. On your alternative question, with no cooperation with the USN at all, Europe would have to build quite a few extra AAW destroyer/frigates - although there are useful classes in existence that could be used as a basis for this force. Obviously, Europe would lack the carrier presence of the USA, and be light on SSN's as well.

      Would the USA - in these circumstances - not feel the need for more ASW capability? Above and beyond that offered by the LCS (eventually)?

      Comment


      • #4
        No I dont think so.

        With out having to any longer worry about keeping the SLOC open to Europe I would even expect a lions share of the Atlantic Fleet to transfer to the Pacific.

        OF course this would be hard to do politically as even moving another carrier west has been met with much wailing and gnashing of teeth.

        With 22 CG47 and 34 DDG 51 IIA with two helos each and 28 DDG 51 I/II with no organic helos or hangers but with facilities/equipment to control, refuel and rearm helos they can be just as effective , efficient at ASW if another ship supplies the helos. They now work in concert with CVN helos and helos off of other surface combatants in particular the OHP's.

        The large deck amphibious ships can also carry ASW helos.

        The OHP's if necessary couild be extented in service for the short term.

        LCS also can operate two helos if so configured(one is organic and another can be added by installing the appropriate module if I understand correctly.

        Now these ships arent likely to be of much use at Blue-water ASW(IMHO jury is still out) but certainly would be able launch helos that could work well with other ships while in transit.

        The existing LCS designs could either be modified or another design could be substituted to provide an increased # of blue-water ASW platforms.

        The plan is to build 56(some plans 82) over an extended period of time.

        So with all the options and the reduced emphasis on the protection of Europe I dont see any critical shortage of ASW assets.

        Lets also remember that in the 1950's the Royal Navy was required to provide 70 ASW frigates to NATO.

        As we know this requirement was progressively reduced virtually from the beginning realistically and pratically.

        France withdrew from NATO.

        The Netherlands on the other-hand did quite well at least plan wise until the mid-1980's and has since progressively reduce its escort forces. In 1981 the RNLN envisaged 21 ASW escorts and four AAW escorts which had changed from a previous plan of three AAW escorts and 22 ASW escorts.

        This force will soon be reduced to the four new AAW frigates and two surviving K. Doorrman class ASW frigates.

        The French have even built an entire class of frigates with no ASW capability!?!?!? And another class of what should actually be figates again w/ no ASW equipment.

        So knowing the history it becomes even clearer that the US/USN has rellied very little on any forces that the Europeans could or have supplied for many decades now.

        Lets talk about mine-warfare.

        NATO nations by the very nature of European geography require many more ships with that ability.

        Thats why it is quite natural that it was one of their main areas of focus.

        In addition the USN has for good reason embarked on a program of providing this capability to ALL of its surface combatants.

        Plus,at least initially, the main focus of the new LCS.

        Its been a tough change that hasnt reached the level of maturity that is ultimately envisioned.

        The relative slowness with getting dedicated MW ships to the area of concern along with those ships having no other warfare capabilities are the main reason for this.

        Plus the existing MCW/MHC are relatively new although a whole class of twelve is being taken out of service leaving only 14.

        OTOH for the most part those being taken of service were not considered deployable and in the NRF. Their capablities were much less than the ships being retained in any event and their original purpose was only to help keep US ports open in the event of war with the now defunct USSR.

        Again I see no critical shortcoming and the existing options adequate at least for the short term.

        So, in summary, with existing ships, plans and other options available I dont forsee any driving force that would compel the USN to increase the size of its fleet over that which has already been contemplated.
        Last edited by rickusn; 26 Nov 06,, 16:40.

        Comment

        Working...
        X