starsiege

true, but the US Navy needs more brown water naval craft, aka littoral combat ships

Anon

Yeah, to fight off the swarms of small enemy speed boats....

Defcon 6

Hey M21, don't forget the enemy canoes.

canoe

Never underestimate a determined man in a canoe.

starsiege

then why is the USN building littoral combat ships? maybe they like watersports?

but nothing beats the choice of getting an iowa class to the usnavy ROLFMAO!

Anon

Hmmmm...maybe..possibly..because they're BROKE?

If the USN had the money to build whatever they wanted they would IMO not be building the LCS prototype we see, that's for damned sure.

Know what the USN needs more than anything else IMO?

A LR multirole 'stealth' fighter-bomber(that can actually do both roles)....and THAT aint even on the table AT ALL.

urmomma158

I know we need the LCS, I was simply pointing out the need for Virginia and all the ASW gear.

__________________

sidishus

Its not about equipment, the USN needs a complete overhaul of the bureaucratic procees the defines what equipment is needed.

The office of the CNO replaced the General Board of the Navy (which was put into place to ride herd over the autonomous bureaus) because it was no longer was viable.

Its pretty obvious today that the process in place is no longer viable with double dipping former Admirals touting their new employers' wares and forceful personalities in major fleet commands pushing along their own prejudices and keeping their own rice bowls filled to the detriment of the fighting effectiveness of the USN.

It is all a mess, with this program being perhaps the most emblematic...

http://www.house.gov/hasc/Weldon10-20-05.pdf


Actually, I will kick it up a notch and say the a hard look needs to be taken at the systemic faults brought about by the adoption of Goldwater-Nichols that have come home to roost in a BIG way throughout DOD.

BMF12

I voted Iowa......but I don't think it's an Iowa they need. Something of the sort however. Cheaper and way more bad-ass..........BB's rule.

Master Chief

Well, it makes sence that the navy is building all but the battleships. There really no need for the battleships anymore. Now don't get me wrong, they are sweet ships. But lack a major air-defense, out side of the 4 phalanx CIWS. The 5" Dp-guns are not effective against airtargets. That was a big problem in gulf war 1. There was around 6 silkworm anti-ship missiles at the ships in the gulf. The UK was credited for taking down two of those missile heading for our battleships.
They do need a replacement for the cruisers. Maybe a larger version of the A.Burk DDG's.

rickusn

With all due respect MC:

"Maybe a larger version of the A.Burk DDG's."

The window of opportunity for that has long ago passed.

Remember that after the first 19 ships the III variant(which took the design to its limits) was forgone and the I/IIs stayed in production eventually giving way to the IIA's(29th ship) which were then(are being) built for better or worse.

And the USN is pretty determined not to build more, period.

IMHO its one or two DD(whatever) and straight to CGX.

But LOL dont hold your breath.

LCS for all its flaws(real or imagined) is going to be the ship built in #'s, maybe.

Otherwise look for the continued down-sizing of the USN.

There are no other real alternatives. FREMM, ADS, Type 45 etc etc etc notwithstanding.

Also remember that a Halifax type ship is out of the question because it too has only a 57mm gun which it appears no one likes(at least when it comes to the much smaller LCS).

I had answers 15 years ago.

LOL

But after that long of debating the topic(USN surface combatants) Im at a loss.

And the USN screwed themselves(not readilly apparent at the time) 20 years ago(approx.) when they made it quite emphatic that they would build no more frigates.

Sort of like the "all or nothing" approach for BB's a hundred years ago or so.

However, if the LCS isnt a frigate by all realistic, practical measures,then I surely dont know what one is.

But then again IMHO all surface combatants are little more than targets in the first place.

Oh well.

Master Chief

All nations navys are going down in size, and major surface combatants. Same with the UK, down sizing its navy. Russia, has nothing.

Rickusn, let me change the subject here for a second. What did you think about the Pegasus hydrofoil patrol craft? I think that would make a great little lattirol craft. I think the navy does not seem to get its money worth out of ships anymore.

rickusn

"All nations navys are going down in size, and major surface combatants. Same with the UK, down sizing its navy. Russia, has nothing.

Rickusn, let me change the subject here for a second. What did you think about the Pegasus hydrofoil patrol craft? I think that would make a great little lattirol craft. I think the navy does not seem to get its money worth out of ships anymore."

1.) All nations are not.
2.) The UK & Russia have financial problems. Russias by all accounts are abating, the UK's not. WARNING: Dont go to the Warfare.ru froum and say "Russia has nothing." LOL The UK it has been reported will soon try a Sea Swap test for the Falklands deployment commitment. The Russians still have seven(8?) Udaloy I/II operational but only three(5?) Sovremmennny. But proper maintenance has been problematic especially as regards the latter. They have type 20380 and 22350 frigate classes building with a new destroyer of 6-7 thousand tons building.
3.) Too small, Too expensive among many other Too's.
4.) Why?
5.) Dont know about that. And suerly started many decades ago. Not just recently. If you mean seeming to retire more ships around 16-22 years(more or less) thats only because more people are aware sooner than ever before.

Its been standard operating procedure for the the UK for slightly longer than the USN in fact a thirteen year old County class DDG(Commissioned 1963) was scrapped(service 1963-1973)(Although from 1972-1976 she was in special reserve) in 1976.

Other classes with very short service lifes Blackwood, Whitby, Salisbury, Leopard, Tribal as were some Rothesay and Leanders but not so blatantly as many had been expensively modernized. More recently some units of the Type 22 class, Type 42 class and even the much respected Type 23 class was only to serve for 18 years!!!

The USN forced first some of the WWII era destoyers to soldier on far longer than their actual effectiveness would indicate they should.

The same can be said for the CF Adams destroyers of which only a few were belatedly modernized. But thye were marginally effective during the 1980's.

Then we expensively modernised the leahy/Belknap class ships only decommission them many years ahead of schedule.

Some USN 50's& up built classes that come to mind Mitscher, F. Sherman, Dealey, Jones, Brooke, Garcia, Knox, Virginia, S. Carolina, OHP, Kidd and then extending to some of the Spruance and Ticonderoga classes. The latter I assume to which you are referring.

OTOH the OHP's left in service are of marginal effectiveness. Their only useful combat capabilities are those which reside in the abilities of the two helicopters they carry. But they complement the A. Burke flight I/II quite well. But its probably not particularly cost effective. But I feel they should be deccommissioned as they reach 22 years of service.

Now UK posters dont get in an uproar. I wasnt disparaging the Royal Navy but there history is useful for illustration/cmparison purposes among many other exceedingly wondrous attributes. And Ive spent a great deal of time analysing the Post-War Royal Navy

Now if anyone feels that putting sailors in harms way on ships that are only marginally effective is getting its "money worth". So be it.

IF you feel expensive mid-life modernization is the way to go. Im sure that ther are those both for and against for any # of reasons.

Master Chief thanks for the points and questions you presented. I look forward to a rebuttal of my thoughts.

I stand ready to try and clarify any of the points Ive attempted to make. Or correct if neccesary.

Master Chief

You have alot of valid points, The OHP's are part of a High-low end program.
with some air deffence. Well that is what they came up with. But they are good ASW ships, and have a better air-deffence then the
Spru-can's. It all seems to much like a disposable navy. Yes I was pissed to see alot of those higher end ships get phased out. Yes the Tico's are great air defence ships, and the A. Burks are good at both AAW/ASW. Its good to see progress but, so few ship classes. When R.Reagon was in we were close to the 500 ship navy. See the point I was trying to make is when I was in the navy and they added new ships with the older ships. Now they mothballed the Spru-cans, and this new DDX is not fully into service yet! What do they have 1-2 ships? I know the Burks are capable ships for both AAW and ASW. I guess the days of big ships is over. We will not see to many more crusiers, and lots of destroyer classes. We will just see a few destroyers and frigates.

As for the russians I did not mean it to sound like they have nothing they do, but the are having a hard time with the ships up keep. They still have 1 active Kashin class DDG, 6 Sovremennny class DDG's (which I happen to love this ship) Nine active Udaloy-I and 1 Udaloy-II. They do have the Stergushchiy class FFG 1 active,2 building and 2 planned. Along with there Krivak's I/II/III's and a few older Grisha's II/III/V's. Seems to me they keep there ships in service for longer periods of time. As you said this can be a bad thing to, which I agree with you. For safty of crews. It all seems world navys are going smaller and classes of ships.

rickusn

"6 Sovremennny class DDG's (which I happen to love this ship) Nine active Udaloy-I and 1 Udaloy-II. '

Why do you love them?

Where do you come up with your numbers? They dont match mine.

And I use Russian sources which are highly optomistic to begin with.

And it would be nice if you would tell me why you think the Pegasus class would be a great littoral ship.

I certainly dont see it.