rickusn

On another discussion site a poster proposed a Littoral DDGN this is a response to it from another poster whom I much respect;

" 1) If the cost of the Zumwalt (DDG-1000) class is a concern, why are you proposing a nuclear ship, which will certainly cost much more? There's a reason the USN doesn't build nuclear surface combatants anymore--they cost much more to build and operate than their conventional equivalents. And in littoral waters, the reactors are a real potential liability. You're more likely to get hit near shore, and a reactor hit is going to be a lot nastier to deal with than a gas turbine hit. A narrow hull would exacerbate this, making it hard to get enough hull stand-off from the reactors for effective protection.

2) Elevators to the flight deck are generally considered undesirable in combatant class ships. For starters, they are maintenance hogs. Unlike in aircraft carriers, combatant elevators require a watertight roof that can be closed over the hangar while the elevator is in the down position. As the Virginia class demonstrated, this will leak unless scrupulously maintained. Such an elevator is also a big hole in the strength deck of the ship, necessitating lots of structural reinforcement. It's not worth the trouble, wehn you can easily build a hangar for two large helos or V-22 class aircraft on the main deck.

3) Minesweeper V-22s? Don't exist, and never will. The V-22 isn't well-suited to towing sweep sleds or sonars. And the non-towed stuff is likely to entail lots of hovering, if it ever works well. That makes a helo (MH-60S or better, MH-53) a superior choice. An AEW V-22 is likewise not going to happen, because there's no reason for the USN to spend piles of cash to produce an inferior equivalent to the existing E-2 Hawkeye. Similarly, there is not going to be an SV-22. If the USN wanted to maintain a fixed-wing ASW capability, it would have kept the S-3s going in the mission.

4) The below-hangar deck you describe seems to essentially duplicate the mission module bay of an LCS, which is a truly huge space. It dominates the LCS designs and would be a big hit on even a large destroyer. LCS at least has the speed and low signatures to run in, deploy its unmanned vehicles or sensors, and then get back out.

5) The SPY-3/VSR combination on DDG-1000 makes AEGIS/SPY-1 look like what it is, a 25-year old system. Now, the new AEGIS Baseline 7 architecture is going to be an improvement, but for littoral air defense, I think DDG-1000 is going to be the better option.

Conclusion:
What you've tried to do here is combine all the features of DDG-1000, LCS, and a mini-LPD, plus nuclear power. The result puts so many eggs in one basket that your ship would be larger and much more expensive than DDG-1000 and would severely limit the Navys ship construciton options. That's the wrong direction to go. The whole point of LCS, for example, is to help reverse the decline in individual ship numbers. While the fleet does need a number of high-end ships like DDG-1000, it also nees a lot more inexpensive platforms that can spread out and coiver a wide area. Much of the time, the only systems they will really need are helicopters and a flagstaff--other times they will need some more advanced systems, but distributed so one lost ship doesn't leave the fleet totally exposed. That's why LCS is so critical, IMO. "

Yoda

Rickusn,

You mentioned several possible Naval missions for the V-22 TiltRotor aircraft on your post. I would like to discuss reasons why others have given at least some consideration to using the V-22 in all of those roles.

1) As a minesweeper, the V-22 would do a very good job. By tilting the rotors forward slightly you can keep the fuselage level while enduring the long intervals of minesweeping. Sweep speed could vary as with a helicopter from hover to any speed needed by the sensor. What makes it better than a helicopter for this mission is that fewer aircraft would be needed because the V-22 can self-deploy to the scene at 270 knots, so it doesn't have to be in the area to react to this need. It can self-deploy from CONUS to anywhere in the world quickly without the need for staging ships along the way. Some of the mining sensors could be carried in the aircraft as they deploy.

2) As an AEW variant the V-22 offers unique advantages over the existing E-2C fixed-wing aircraft. The V-22 has more altitude capability and more time on station when operating from an aircraft carrier. The deck does not have to go to flight quarters for take-offs and landings, but it can be handled on deck like a helicopter. And last but not least, it's spotting factor is much less than the E-2C. So considering this new aircraft with its lower maintenance (really, it is much lower than any of the existing non-attack aircraft, to include the SH-60) the V-22 could be an AEW bird with much less hassle. And last again but not least, it can operate from non-aviation ships with its hover capability and refuel while the carrier is launching fighter and attack from it's deck. And one more, it can provide AEW coverage for Amphibious Ready Groups that do not have a carrier, a mission that isn't done at all today.

3) You gave no reason why the V-22 is unsuitable for ASW. I have a few things here to consider before dropping the V-22 as a potential replacement for the S-3. First, the V-22 could launch quickly from either a carrier or any non-aviation ship to include the amphibious ships. It can fly a great distance quickly like the S-3 to perform ASW so the subs can possibly be kept at a great distances from the high value targets. Once there, it can drop sonobouys exactly where they are needed and monitor them. Here is where the V-22 can outshine the S-3; if a sub is detected by the sonobuy array the V-22 can go to the position quickly, convert back into helicopter mode, hover and dip a low-frequency, high power active device, ping and detect the submarine and drop a torpedo right on top of him almost before he knows it. This works very well against the quieter desiel submarines which are a much more likely threat today in the littorals. The fixed wing ASW platforms- {S-3 and P-3} cannot do that, and some believe this is a major benefit for the V-22 ASW platform. This was one concept of operations that then, Secretary of the Navy, John Lehman considered when he announced in 1988 that the V-22 would replace all the S-3s. Of course, he left soon after, and his vision did not prevail, but the concept still appears viable.

..and the collective advantage is... if all of these fixed-wing aircraft were to be replaced by variants of the V-22 aboard the carrier, the commonality of components greatly eases the logistics burden of Naval Carrier Aviation while increasing the effectiveness of the CVN..

So, while the V-22 must prove itself in combat when the Marines deploy them later this year, the use of an aircraft with this capability has the potential to transform Naval Warfare well into the 21st century. As the buy and the production rate increases, the cost per unit will continue to come down drasticly and the V-22 cost-effectiveness will climb...

Thanks for listening,
Yoda