Iowa Class vs Kirov Class

[Shipwreck]

Originally Posted by gunnut

Is that the same type of hull the Burkes have? I noticed the Burkes have a very wide beam that flares out, unlike the previous destroyers we had.

From USS Chaffee website :

A new, large, waterplane area hull form significantly improves seakeeping ability. The hull form is designed to permit high speed in high sea states. The seakeeping hull form is characterized by considerable flair (sic) and a "V" shape appearance at the waterline.

From Norman Friedman's US Destroyers, p.421 :

The new destroyer incorporated a "seakeeping" hull based on American observations of Soviet practice.
(...)
The new hull form was inspired by US Navy studies of Soviet warship design.

[Shipwreck]

Originally Posted by gunnut

Is it better to have a relatively slow 5" gun like this or a very fast 3" gun like the OTO super rapid?

Check this link.

[glyn]

A well written piece. Most interesting.

[SteaminDemon]

Originally Posted by Shipwreck

The only thing Lehman (spit, puke ) did during his tenure was to build castles made of sands, which fell in the sea, eventually.

I was going to mention Vistica's book (Fall from Glory: The Men Who Sank the U.S. Navy ) but the review published in Airpower Journal pretty much sums it all up :

"The author’s lack of military knowledge does hurt his case, however. Scattered throughout the work are numerous instances wherein he misinterprets the information afforded him and so draws the wrong conclusions. In covering Tailhook, for example, he casts aspersions upon the account of an officer accused of assaulting Lt Paula Coughlin, trying to undermine his image as a good Christian by noting his call sign “*****” as indicative of un-Christian behavior. Aviators do not pick their call signs themselves (their fellow pilots have a ceremony for it), and in this case it was undoubtedly a play on his name (Bonam) with perhaps a reference to a mistake made during training (i.e., a “*****”).

Oddly, it is on the subject of Tailhook that the author is most vulnerable. He takes Lieutenant Coughlin’s story of victimization at face value; he labors to discount her critics without providing the evidence he seems to have at hand throughout the rest of the book. For those who followed Tailhook and its aftermath, this account suffers from a reporter overprotective of his source.

Readers may also have a problem with the heroes and villains emerging from this tale, exposing inherent contradictions in the author’s logic. The great villain is Lehman, who Vistica admits did much to restore the Navy’s self-image while allowing standards to erode. Oddly enough, his successor James Webb, who strove mightily to correct perceived flaws in the Navy officer corps, is vilified as a puritanical troglodyte who despised the notion of women in the military. The only clear-cut heroes to emerge are Lt Paula Coughlin (of course) and Admiral Boorda, despite evidence presented that the “sailor’s sailor” was more “sailor’s politician” than anything else."

Yeah, you failed to include that part of the review and it doesn't "preety much sum it all up". To say the 600 Ship fleet was unsupportable was rediculous. How many ships failed to sail due to lack of manning during the 80's? Are rotations better off now then they were? The people responsible for the Navy's downfall as well as the rest of the Military were many in the Clinton administration. The downfall continues to this day. Have you ever looked at how the "revolution in naval training" is going? Thank goodness there are still many a great sailor from the "oh so bad eighties" that are still around to hand down the knowlege they themselves have gained. If you ask a majority of those who were in during the "horrible 80's" as the author makes it seem, they will tell you that the 80's and the very begining of the 90's were the best times of their careers. A person close to me served 30 years and he said he did enjoy his whole carrer, though the best times were the 80's. (he was in from 63 - 93).

Tell me why ships deployed out of routine has been rising ever since? It was high during the Clinton years when we were down to 318 ships. During those years also, the Navy had to respond to less incidents as it did during the Reagan years. It has since remained the same. As of today they say there is a goal of "313" ships by 2035, but due to the ever increasing costs (if a majority of what you rely on is cost plus fee, a lack of competition it is only natural) it just may not happen. The way the author sounds, he makes it seem like he is against any sort of military build up. He fails to mention in the 80's how many "pork barrel" R&D projects were cut, as well as the money that the tax payers saved through restructuring the way the Navy went about contracting, and the sucessfulness of the BOSS program. If we were to try a buildup like that today, the cost would be astranomically higher than that of the 80's (in todays dollars).

Things like Sea Swap, FRP (as we jokingly call it, family reduction plan) are like putting a band aid on a ruptured steam pipe. The problems are being swept under the rug. Tell me why ships that are in need of maintanence are deffering their work just so they could meet underway obligations? Why are we accepting ships like the San Antonio, only to later find more than 5000 discrepancies and have to pay for the work that should have been done right in the first place? If your views are based off of that book, so be it.

It is a view of many a person to only look at failures, and not bother to look at accomplishments, or completely ignore them. There were far more accomplishments then failures during the Reagan years.

[Shipwreck]

Originally Posted by SteaminDemon

To say the 600 Ship fleet was unsupportable was rediculous.

BS

Lehman's (spit, puke ) *600-ship navy* was unsupportable, as numerous reports pointed out at the time.

E.g. this GAO Testimony dated September 6, 1985 :

By the end of fiscal year 1985, the Navy will have 541 ships in the fleet and 75 new ships under contract. Although the Navy will numerically reach a 600-ship force by 1989, it will not achieve the desired force mix in that year. For example, the Navy will not have the number of amphibious ships needed to lift 50,000 marines and their equipment. The Navy's goal is to achieve this capability by the year 1994.

Our analysis of the Navy's future shipbuilding plans indicates the Navy will not achieve its desired 600-ship force mix through the year 2000.

(...)

By comparing Navy's five year plans with actual force levels achieved over the past 20 years, we developed factors to estimate future general purpose force levels in the Navy's official 600-ship count. We first applied these factors to the Navy's fiscal year 1986 program plan for fiscal years 1986 through 2000.

After adjustments reflecting the status of current Navy programs, our analysis shows that increasing shortfalls can be expected.

Specifically, by the end of fiscal year 1990, Navy's actual force level would contain 3 percent fewer ships than the Navy is currently programming. This would grow to 5 percent in 1995 and 7 percent in the year 2000.

Shortfalls would occur in most categories of ships, but the largest deviations would be in surface combatants and attack submarines. This part of our analysis only addresses numerical shortfalls against Navy's program plan.

E.g. this other GAO testimony dated February 19, 1987 :

The Navy, however, still has some way to go before it will achieve the "minimum force" it says it needs to execute the maritime strategy. By 1989, the Navy will have 600 ships in the fleet, including 15 deployable aircraft carriers and an additional one undergoing service life extension.

But, based on current projections the Navy will not have the mix of ships that the strategy requires. Our analysis of the Navy's shipbuilding plans through fiscal year 1996 shows that even if current plans are executed, the Navy will not achieve its "minimum force" requirement before the year 2000. Shortages in the Navy's "minimum force" will continue to exist in surface combatants, amphibious ships, attack submarines, and support ships.

Expanding the fleet is expensive, but the capital investment is only a portion of the costs associated with a larger fleet. Operations and support costs will also grow substantially. As new classes of ships and their attendant systems are introduced into the fleet, our calculations show that operating and support costs of $47 billion in fiscal year 1986 will nearly double in constant
dollars by fiscal year 2000.

It seems to me that this raises a fundamental question about whether this country can over the long haul, spend what the Navy says is required to carry out its current forward deployment maritime strategy.

[Shipwreck]

Originally Posted by SteaminDemon

He fails to mention in the 80's how many "pork barrel" R&D projects were cut, as well as the money that the tax payers saved through restructuring the way the Navy went about contracting, and the sucessfulness of the BOSS program.

BS

Cost overruns were massive during during Lehman's (spit, puke ) tenure, as discussed for instance in this GAO report dated November 1988 which compares program cost estimates as of December 31, 1987 with the baseline estimates :

More specifically, table III.1 shows that the current total program cost estimate (in current dollars) for all Navy SAR programs is approximately $359.9 billion. This represents an increase of approximately $82.9 billion (in current dollars), or 30 percent, when compared with the baseline estimates.

Three of the classes --aircraft, missiles, and ships-- reported total program cost increases. These increases (in current dollars) ranged from approximately $16.8 billion for missiles to approximately $40.7 billion for ships. One class --other programs-- reports a total program cost decrease of approximately $3.9 billion (in current dollars).

[Shipwreck]

Originally Posted by SteaminDemon

If you ask a majority of those who were in during the "horrible 80's" as the author makes it seem, they will tell you that the 80's and the very begining of the 90's were the best times of their careers.

You've obviously missed this sentence from the review in Airpower Journal :

The great villain is Lehman, who Vistica admits did much to restore the Navy’s self-image while allowing standards to erode.

That Lehman (spit, puke ) allowed standards to erode, with a subsequent decline in discipline and effectiveness is all too obvious, as the GAO found out later when they investigated the explosion aboard the USS Iowa.

[SteaminDemon]

Originally Posted by Shipwreck

You've obviously missed this sentence from the review in Airpower Journal :



That Lehman (spit, puke ) allowed standards to erode, with a subsequent decline in discipline and effectiveness is all too obvious, as the GAO found out later when they investigated the explosion aboard the USS Iowa.

Quick reply because I have to run.

The quote above, yeah, it is from that book. If that is what you are basing your views of the entire Navy, you are wrong. So by the books view, Lehman, just by himself allowed standards to erode?

http://archive.gao.gov/d17t6/137535.pdf: Look at page 56, in fact read most of it. What does it say on 56?

Ole shipwreck, it has been an interesting and enlightening conversation so far, but I have to run, will reply later.

[Shipwreck]

Originally Posted by SteaminDemon

If that is what you are basing your views of the entire Navy,

You want more ? Enjoy this then :

Navy Chief Says Lehman Was Not 'Balanced'

By RICHARD HALLORAN
The New York Times
Published: April 30, 1987

The Chief of Naval Operations, Adm. Carlisle A. H. Trost, has asserted that John F. Lehman Jr., who recently resigned as Secretary of the Navy, ''was not a balanced human being.''

In an outburst rare for a senior military officer against a civilian superior, Admiral Trost criticized what he saw as Mr. Lehman's disdain toward senior naval officers, his unwillingness to brook disagreement and his favoritism toward certain officers.

Admiral Trost, in an interview with The Atlanta Constitution that was published Tuesday, also accused Mr. Lehman of violating the admiral's definition of military loyalty and of running away from a political fight.

Reasons for Outburst

Naval officers said Admiral Trost's outburst was evidently the loosing of long-pent-up personal feelings about Mr. Lehman, plus a reflection of views widely held among senior naval officers. Other Pentagon officials suggested the admiral might have been playing politics to protect the Navy's budget now and his own position later.

None of those directly involved would comment on the incident. A spokesman for Admiral Trost said, ''The admiral does not want to say anything further.'' A spokesman for the new Secretary of the Navy, James Webb, a former marine, said, ''He is keeping his head down and out of the field of fire.''

A spokesman for Secretary of Defense Caspar W. Weinberger said Mr. Weinberger ''had taken note of the comments'' but had nothing to say about them. A spokesman for Mr. Lehman, who resigned April 10, said he was ''out of the country'' and could not be reached.

The episode began shortly before Mr. Lehman resigned, at his last news conference. As is customary at the National Press Club, the final question at a luncheon meeting was lighthearted; Mr. Lehman was asked who would win this year's race between crews at Oxford and Cambridge.

Mr. Lehman, who once rowed for Cambridge in Britain, and who earned a reputation for flip remarks in his six years in office here, remarked, ''Oxford has as much chance of defeating Cambridge as Sam Nunn has of stopping my two new carriers.''

Concern About Angering Nunn

The audience laughed at the inside joke; Senator Nunn, Democrat of Georgia, is chairman of the Armed Services Committee that will pass judgment on the Reagan Administration's request for the aircraft carriers. Those ships are dear to Mr. Lehman's heart, but the request has generated considerable resistance in Congress.

Admiral Trost said, ''I have no doubt that it ticked off Sam Nunn a little bit.'' A spokesman for Mr. Nunn declined to confirm that. In any event, the admiral called in a correspondent for The Constitution, which is published in Mr. Nunn's home state, and sought to placate the chairman of the Senate committee controlling the Navy's budget.

''Comments like that do damage because it appears he is the spokesman for guys like me,'' Admiral Trost said. ''Well, he is not. Nor was he the spokesman for his successor. For a man to do that just before he leaves office is like tossing down the gauntlet and not sticking around for the fight.''

In doing so, however, Admiral Trost fired a personal broadside at Mr. Lehman. The admiral had been a senior staff officer in the Navy Department under Mr. Lehman and then was not Mr. Lehman's choice for Chief of Naval Operations when that position came open last summer.

Mr. Lehman, in an interview before he left office, said he had recommended Adm. Frank Kelso and had persuaded Mr. Weinberger to accept his recommendation. But it was overturned in the White House by Vice Adm. John M. Poindexter, then the President's national security adviser. Admiral Poindexter was later implicated in the sale of arms to Iran and the diversion of profits to Nicaraguan rebels. He resigned to return to the Navy Department.

Mr. Lehman said Admiral Poindexter persuaded President Reagan to name Admiral Trost because he was senior to Admiral Kelso and was the consensus choice of many admirals.

Link

[fitz]

Quite frankly the biggest problem with the 600 ship navy was that it had nothing to do with military need but rather seems to have just been some fascination Lehman had with the number 600. At least I have never found any rational basis for the 600-ship Navy. It did however, mean less money for things like guided munitions - an area in which the Navy was way behind in 1991 for example.

[SteaminDemon]

"Mr. Lehman, in an interview before he left office, said he had recommended Adm. Frank Kelso and had persuaded Mr. Weinberger to accept his recommendation. But it was overturned in the White House by Vice Adm. John M. Poindexter, then the President's national security adviser. Admiral Poindexter was later implicated in the sale of arms to Iran and the diversion of profits to Nicaraguan rebels. He resigned to return to the Navy Department."


Lehman was a fighter.
''Oxford has as much chance of defeating Cambridge as Sam Nunn has of stopping my two new carriers.'' Thank you Mr Lehman for fighting for our Nimitz class carriers.

Another side note, the OSD refused to clear documents with "maritime superiority", even when the president would say it directly. Weinberger, and Reagan agreed with Lehman, so he ignored the OSD staff.

Some people just don't like when you tell them they will no longer be able to rob the Navy. The money actually went where it was supposed to. Nowadays......., during the Clinton administration

"For example, the Navy will not have the number of amphibious ships needed to lift 50,000 marines and their equipment.The Navy's goal is to achieve this capability by the year 1994."
And who became president after Bush Sr.? Sr's proposal was only a slight reduction (some things were cut that I do not agree with) for the military as a whole, but after Sr. there was not a reduction, but gutting.

Good news, Wasp Class, first launched in 87. Thanks to the Reagan administration. MSC can also thank the Reagan administration as well. Don't forget about the SL-7 Cargo Ships, The mercy and comfort, LASH ships, barge carriers and other ships as well that are still around. They received a well needed boost.

"Our analysis of the Navy's future shipbuilding plans indicates the Navy will not achieve its desired 600-ship force mix through the year 2000".
And who was elected for a second term?

[Gun Grape]

Originally Posted by SteaminDemon

"Mr. Lehman, in an interview before he left office, said he had recommended Adm. Frank Kelso and had persuaded Mr. Weinberger to accept his recommendation. But it was overturned in the White House by Vice Adm. John M. Poindexter, then the President's national security adviser. Admiral Poindexter was later implicated in the sale of arms to Iran and the diversion of profits to Nicaraguan rebels. He resigned to return to the Navy Department."

Well you normally don't pick a newly promoted 3 star to run the whole show. Unless you want someone you could bully around. Typical Lehman (Gag, puke,Spit, Repeat) move. Like when he tried to bully Admiral Bruce DeMars into changing the outcome of a promotion board.

Lehman was a fighter.
''Oxford has as much chance of defeating Cambridge as Sam Nunn has of stopping my two new carriers.'' Thank you Mr Lehman for fighting for our Nimitz class carriers.

What the Abe and Washington? Carter had authorized TR. We got out of a recession, we bought more. The surface control ship idea had long been dead. And when your drawing down from an unpopular war and the economy is in the drink, you don't buy carriers.

"For example, the Navy will not have the number of amphibious ships needed to lift 50,000 marines and their equipment.The Navy's goal is to achieve this capability by the year 1994."
And who became president after Bush Sr.? Sr's proposal was only a slight reduction (some things were cut that I do not agree with) for the military as a whole, but after Sr. there was not a reduction, but gutting.

great insight for a GAO report written in 1985.

But your wrong about Sr.

Are U.S. forces unprepared and underfunded? fact and fiction | Naval War College Review | Find Articles at BNET.com

During the decade of the 1990s, the United States spent about 8 percent less than it did on average during the Cold War and 16 percent less than it did during the halcyon 1980s, a decade that featured the largest peacetime defense spending increase in American history. However, this reduction was prompted not by the desire to balance the federal budget but by the demise of the Soviet empire. Even supporters of a strong defense, like the late Senator John Tower (D-Tex.), thought the drop would be more precipitous than what actually occurred. In a hearing during his unsuccessful bid to become secretary of defense for the elder George Bush, Tower envisioned a decline of more than 50 percent after the collapse of the Soviet Union. (3) The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff from 1989 to 1993, General Colin Powell, supported a 25 percent decline but feared that there would be a large shift of money from the Pentagon to schools, housing, and cri me prevention. (4) Few would have thought that the "liberal" Bill Clinton would leave office with a defense budget higher in real terms than such Cold War presidents as Dwight Eisenhower, John Kennedy, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, and Jimmy Carter and that he would have spent more on defense in real terms than the elder George Bush had projected on leaving office.

Yea good thing we got rid of those republican. The military would have really been gutted.

And instead of buying new Burkes and Ticos they would have let the old less capable Spru cans soldier on.

As someone that did floats in the 80s and the 90s I'll say that we may have a smaller Navy but they are better trained, more disciplined and serving on better more capable ships now than the 80s. I would much rather go to combat with the Navy of today than the Navy of the Reagan era.

"Our analysis of the Navy's future shipbuilding plans indicates the Navy will not achieve its desired 600-ship force mix through the year 2000".
And who was elected for a second term?

And wasn't it insightful for the GAO to know that back in 1985 when the report was written.

Back when everyone buy old Spit puke knew that a 600 ship Navy was a pipe dream.

[gunnut]

Originally Posted by Shipwreck

Check this link.

It seems like we should go with a small caliber (57mm) fast gun against speedboats and air targets with a larger caliber (155mm) for bombardment. Too expensive to build 2 requirements into a single gun. The result is something so complex, expensive, and heavier than having 2 seperate gun systems.

[SteaminDemon]

Training was revamped during the 80's. Sorry to burst your bubble, but a majority of schools are going away and aren't what they used to be.
Do you think that having to have a tech fly out to a ship just to fix things is a good thing?
Is manning up to par? Hardly. 6x6 watch rotations are not an uncommon thing these days. As I have mentioned before, sea swap, FRP, are band aids. Ships deferring maintenance to meet underway commitments....not a good thing. There is more to it than you think.

Tower said 40% to 50%, thank goodness he was not selected, but the planned reduction was around 13% across the board. Yes, although the Clinton administration spent a lot of money, where did it go? Certainly not for more ships. The old ways of wasteful spending came right back. The BOSS program was gone faster than you could say boo. Clinton did not do wonders for the military. Ships going over budget up to 100% of their original costs (as was the case 30 years prior to the 80's for many projects). Come on now . We are in the same situation now as we were with the start of the Clinton administration. You can throw all the money you want in the defense budget, but when it is mis-handled, lacks competition between contractors (sole sourcing) and reverses things put in place to save money, you will have a great deal of problems even maintaining what we have.

As to the Burke's and Tico's, they were already out and about. The last spru can was built in 83. The spru cans soldiered on anyway and did just fine.

Side note, Philadelphia navy yard. It was an agenda of Cheney to close Philly and was announced in 91. It was 96 when the doors closed. Clinton was in office and could have helped stop the closure. Nothing was done. Bush Sr stood by and did nothing as well. Philly still has some life though, NAVSEA are among other things that are happening at Philly. Mr. Bloomberg raised taxes for folks at the Brooklyn Navy yard, which caused them to move on. What gets me is Clinton showed up at the signing of a deal for Philly, but he did nothing to prevent the base from closing during his term, but he is there for.....

Gotta run. Take it easy.

[Shipwreck]

Originally Posted by Gun Grape

Typical Lehman (Gag, puke,Spit, Repeat) move.

ROFL !!!!!!!