Maybe someone here can help explain what has happened to the navies ship building strategy or at least the change in this strategy. It is my understanding that after the battleships were deccomissioned in 1992 the DD-21/DDX/DDG-1000 was supposed to replace them as a fire support ship. My argument at the time was that you can not build a warship until the weapon system it is supposed to carry is completed. With the Navy not even considering large caliber guns as an option for extended range they attempted to do EGRM with 5-inch and 6-inch shells. This required a breakthrough in the laws of physicis due to the small caliber. The guns overheated, slow time of delivery, low barrel life, and the Navy has now cancelled this project.
The navy also says that the threats have changed saying they need more missile defense and ASW defense and that DDG-1000 could not communicate with it's AAW weapons after launch so it would have been uncapable of area AAW warfare and would need escorts. In order to become an effective AAW ship the guns would have to be removed.
I personal feeling is that the choice of the tumblehome hull is the greatest reason the navy has lost interest. Again this is simple physics in a following sea as a wave lifts her stern the bow will dig into the trough of the waves and slow down and the wave lifting her stern will flip the ship over. Granted these would be gale to hurricane force waves but last time I checked these events still happen on this planet. In addition due to her hull above the waterline being narrower her reserve buoyancy is automatically reduced so that if she should flood above the waterline she is at real risk of developing a negative GM.
Now the navy wants to move to CGX and Congress wants it to be a nuclear powered ship at 20,000+ tons. This is to handle the much larger radars required for ballistic missile defense. This would be at a size of USS Nevada was in 1914. To me this should be BBX and a 14,000 ton destroyer should be CGX.
So here are my questions;
1. Has the navy abadnoned naval gunfire support for the Marines? Despite what they say nothing has changed since 1992 concerning Marine operations. The Navy has spent millions over the past 17 years and used this as a justification for this money only to abandon it in my opinion.
2. Due to modern technology requiring larger hulls is the destroyer obsolete?
3. Can a general escort now be designed with good capabilities on a small hull and produced in numbers that is econmical?
4. Will the navy abandon its prejudice on larger caliber guns so that it could build a ship capable of meeting Marine goals that does not require a breakthrough in the laws of phsics? AGS still does not meet volume or lethality and therefore is a wasted effort if it can not fulfil the requirements.
5. Would it make sense to take Iowa and tow her to a spot and reccomission just enough to operate a single turret and finish the development of the 11-inch and 13-inch sabots as well as an 8-inch sabot which would meet or come very close to meeting the Marine requirements? Dalgren porbably can not shoot rounds into the Chesapeke Bay at the ranges required without endangering civilians.
6. The Iowa's had two gun systems and multiple guns with a huge magazine capacity. Therfore with two gun systems she could meet almost any fire mission that was within range. A ship dedicated to firesupport with the capacity of AAW defense in my opinion would be just fine and could such a design be developed on a 20,000+ ton ship since the navy wishes this size ship now? Turrets can be redigned to reduce manpower once the shell design is finished and powder can be in seperate casings just like the Germans did in WWII for 15-inch guns making powder safer. This would also allow automatic loading and a higher rate of fire. If the navy wants AGS they can be the ships secondary battery.
Unless the weapon systems are completed none of these ships will be built. A warship only serves as a platform to carry its weapons into combat. Naval fire support does not require high tech solutions and there is no need for a huge number of platforms for this mission. Any deployment of the Marines will be on a US time table and the mission well planned in advance. Thus taking two of the proposed 20,000 ton CGX ships and modifying to a fire support and AAW defense design makes sense to me. Then they can build the remaining ships for BMD and still support the Marines.
The navy also says that the threats have changed saying they need more missile defense and ASW defense and that DDG-1000 could not communicate with it's AAW weapons after launch so it would have been uncapable of area AAW warfare and would need escorts. In order to become an effective AAW ship the guns would have to be removed.
I personal feeling is that the choice of the tumblehome hull is the greatest reason the navy has lost interest. Again this is simple physics in a following sea as a wave lifts her stern the bow will dig into the trough of the waves and slow down and the wave lifting her stern will flip the ship over. Granted these would be gale to hurricane force waves but last time I checked these events still happen on this planet. In addition due to her hull above the waterline being narrower her reserve buoyancy is automatically reduced so that if she should flood above the waterline she is at real risk of developing a negative GM.
Now the navy wants to move to CGX and Congress wants it to be a nuclear powered ship at 20,000+ tons. This is to handle the much larger radars required for ballistic missile defense. This would be at a size of USS Nevada was in 1914. To me this should be BBX and a 14,000 ton destroyer should be CGX.
So here are my questions;
1. Has the navy abadnoned naval gunfire support for the Marines? Despite what they say nothing has changed since 1992 concerning Marine operations. The Navy has spent millions over the past 17 years and used this as a justification for this money only to abandon it in my opinion.
2. Due to modern technology requiring larger hulls is the destroyer obsolete?
3. Can a general escort now be designed with good capabilities on a small hull and produced in numbers that is econmical?
4. Will the navy abandon its prejudice on larger caliber guns so that it could build a ship capable of meeting Marine goals that does not require a breakthrough in the laws of phsics? AGS still does not meet volume or lethality and therefore is a wasted effort if it can not fulfil the requirements.
5. Would it make sense to take Iowa and tow her to a spot and reccomission just enough to operate a single turret and finish the development of the 11-inch and 13-inch sabots as well as an 8-inch sabot which would meet or come very close to meeting the Marine requirements? Dalgren porbably can not shoot rounds into the Chesapeke Bay at the ranges required without endangering civilians.
6. The Iowa's had two gun systems and multiple guns with a huge magazine capacity. Therfore with two gun systems she could meet almost any fire mission that was within range. A ship dedicated to firesupport with the capacity of AAW defense in my opinion would be just fine and could such a design be developed on a 20,000+ ton ship since the navy wishes this size ship now? Turrets can be redigned to reduce manpower once the shell design is finished and powder can be in seperate casings just like the Germans did in WWII for 15-inch guns making powder safer. This would also allow automatic loading and a higher rate of fire. If the navy wants AGS they can be the ships secondary battery.
Unless the weapon systems are completed none of these ships will be built. A warship only serves as a platform to carry its weapons into combat. Naval fire support does not require high tech solutions and there is no need for a huge number of platforms for this mission. Any deployment of the Marines will be on a US time table and the mission well planned in advance. Thus taking two of the proposed 20,000 ton CGX ships and modifying to a fire support and AAW defense design makes sense to me. Then they can build the remaining ships for BMD and still support the Marines.
Comment