Most needed in US NAVY - Page 18

Master Chief · 12-21-2006, 15:43 PM

Ok, all the numbers came from "Jane's Warships" 2006 edition.

As for the Sovremennny class DDG's, why I said I love them I think they are a well balanced ship. Good AAW and Good ASuW. And now they have a mod. version not sure if its russian or china that made the VLS. I think the Udaloy II are ok, when they changed the to the SS-N-22 missiles. Now I know they most likly could not put 1/2 of theses units to sea at any one time but that is the numbers Jane's is putting out.

And as for the Pegasus class, for a small littoral ship. Why not fast and good armament. Perfect for gulf area work. Hell 8 harpoons, and a 3 in Dp-gun. At least good to keep them for the coast gaurd ships.

Galrahn · 12-22-2006, 17:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Master Chief

And as for the Pegasus class, for a small littoral ship. Why not fast and good armament. Perfect for gulf area work. Hell 8 harpoons, and a 3 in Dp-gun. At least good to keep them for the coast gaurd ships.

They looked neater than they performed. They were expensive and designed for fast strike, not for the roles of other small combatants in the US Navy.

rickusn · 12-22-2006, 19:00 PM

Thanks MC!!

Just my take:

Its hard for me to call the Sovs "wel-balanced" when ASW capability is virtually non-existent.

However if you operate a Sov and Udaloy together thats a "horse of a different color".

But surprisingly the Russain Navy doesnt do this at least not often. It been my observation that two Udaloys are more often seen operating together.

But they lack an area AAW missile system.

Of course this may be a fuction of availability.

The Sovs propulsion system has been a headache whether this is due to inherent design flaws or lack of proper maintenance funding is not quite clear.

It should be interesting to watch China's experience with the class over the next few years as the newness wears.

On the Pegasus: They were fast and they did carry Harpoons. But good CG cutters? I dont see the utility. And as Galrahn seems to hint at far to expensive for the CG to operate.

Most nations seem to be attempting to gradually wean themeselves of small,fast combatants.

OPVs/Frigates over 1000 tons full load(In some cases far over) becoming more popular as they are seen as more useful over a broader array of missions. And better seakeeping abilities in general.

IMHO what really drives the size of LCS is effective, efficient & safe all-weather helicopter operations.

Again another of my observations is that ships under 3000tons full-load are hard-pressed at best to meet that requirement.

tphuang · 12-28-2006, 02:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Master Chief

Ok, all the numbers came from "Jane's Warships" 2006 edition.

As for the Sovremennny class DDG's, why I said I love them I think they are a well balanced ship. Good AAW and Good ASuW. And now they have a mod. version not sure if its russian or china that made the VLS. I think the Udaloy II are ok, when they changed the to the SS-N-22 missiles. Now I know they most likly could not put 1/2 of theses units to sea at any one time but that is the numbers Jane's is putting out.

And as for the Pegasus class, for a small littoral ship. Why not fast and good armament. Perfect for gulf area work. Hell 8 harpoons, and a 3 in Dp-gun. At least good to keep them for the coast gaurd ships.

The ones that we just got definitely do not have VLS. If you are thinking about the shtil VLU, that's not really ready yet, but is planned to go on project 22350 I think.

Master Chief · 12-29-2006, 17:22 PM

Yes, there is a version of the Sov. with VLS I have to find the picture and info on it.

Master Chief · 03-01-2007, 16:35 PM

I was totaly wrong about the VLS sov. class. It was a moc-up. Sorry I stand corrected.

WECIV · 03-02-2007, 14:24 PM

Diesel Electrics are needed to train against future threats.

W

Dreadnought · 03-02-2007, 15:58 PM

To return to its traditional ways that have gone by the wayside.

IDonT · 03-02-2007, 16:18 PM

USN needs more Flight II/A Burkes. With the decommisioning of the last of the Spruance, there is a lack of LAMPS III capability in the surface fleet.

Master Chief · 03-03-2007, 13:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

To return to its traditional ways that have gone by the wayside.

Amen!

BB62squid · 04-12-2007, 05:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sparky

I voted for the Virginia class attack sub. Not having enough forces us to risk using subs not suited for the littoral role and puts them at risk. Littoral engagements will likely predominate for the next few years. We could use the CVNs but they are in the works and we have time. We need the aircraft situation sorted out first to get full effect of the carriers. The naval JSF isn't a total solution. Many nations thinking of opposing us keep track of our carriers and choose to act when we are elswhere. The silent invisible subs add an additional uncertainty to the mix.

Ahhh...but as envisioned when they came out in the '80s, battleship battle groups are capable of acting as fillers for the CVBG's, and add Presence and Power Projection

BB62squid · 04-12-2007, 05:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigross86

Cruise missiles have massive range, a 1000 lb warhead, and if the radar station is on a mountain, the BB-61 might not be able to hit it. I'm only playing devil's advocate here

Why would they not be able to hit targets on top of a mountain?? And even, supposing, that the guns couldnt, we still have those 'hawks. Not that I ever contemplated t-hawk strikes at high altitude when I was shooting, mind you...

BB62squid · 04-12-2007, 05:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anvilanthony

LoL but battleships are obsolute in naval warfare these days ..

Really?? I am of the mindset that the term obsolete is actually obsolete nowadays. We have already proven that all that's needed is the will and the $$$...look at the buffs

BB62squid · 04-12-2007, 05:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lurker

LoL.

Most of the battles in Bosnia were more than 50 miles inland. US controlling zone is more than 90 miles inland.

What use of the battleship there?

Do not forget that you still will need an air support for targeting.

If memory serves, that's why the battleships were fitted with Pioneer, and have the capability to operate more advanced UAV's

BB62squid · 04-12-2007, 05:37 AM

again, as has been stated and and restated on the board, the reason the BB's are not in service is politics, and the air-centric navy

View Poll Results: What does the US NAVY need most?
Iowa Class Battleships	39	24.68%
Virginia Class Nuclear Attack Submarines	34	21.52%
Amphibious Assault Ships	16	10.13%
Aerligh Burk Class Destroyers	10	6.33%
Nimitz Class Carriers	30	18.99%
Littoral Combat Ships	29	18.35%
Voters: 158. You may not vote on this poll

12-21-2006, 15:43 PM	#256 (permalink)
Master Chief *Military Professional* Join Date: 11-07-06 Location: USA Posts: 131 Country:	Ok, all the numbers came from "Jane's Warships" 2006 edition. As for the Sovremennny class DDG's, why I said I love them I think they are a well balanced ship. Good AAW and Good ASuW. And now they have a mod. version not sure if its russian or china that made the VLS. I think the Udaloy II are ok, when they changed the to the SS-N-22 missiles. Now I know they most likly could not put 1/2 of theses units to sea at any one time but that is the numbers Jane's is putting out. And as for the Pegasus class, for a small littoral ship. Why not fast and good armament. Perfect for gulf area work. Hell 8 harpoons, and a 3 in Dp-gun. At least good to keep them for the coast gaurd ships. Last edited by Master Chief : 12-21-2006 at 15:48 PM.

03-01-2007, 16:35 PM	#261 (permalink)
Master Chief *Military Professional* Join Date: 11-07-06 Location: USA Posts: 131 Country:	I was totaly wrong about the VLS sov. class. It was a moc-up. Sorry I stand corrected. __________________ "Peace through Power" Late Ronald Reagan

03-02-2007, 15:58 PM	#263 (permalink)
Dreadnought *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 05-12-05 Posts: 5,199 Country:	To return to its traditional ways that have gone by the wayside. __________________ Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

12-22-2006, 19:00 PM	#258 (permalink)
rickusn *Military Professional* Join Date: 08-09-03 Posts: 1,317	Thanks MC!! Just my take: Its hard for me to call the Sovs "wel-balanced" when ASW capability is virtually non-existent. However if you operate a Sov and Udaloy together thats a "horse of a different color". But surprisingly the Russain Navy doesnt do this at least not often. It been my observation that two Udaloys are more often seen operating together. But they lack an area AAW missile system. Of course this may be a fuction of availability. The Sovs propulsion system has been a headache whether this is due to inherent design flaws or lack of proper maintenance funding is not quite clear. It should be interesting to watch China's experience with the class over the next few years as the newness wears. On the Pegasus: They were fast and they did carry Harpoons. But good CG cutters? I dont see the utility. And as Galrahn seems to hint at far to expensive for the CG to operate. Most nations seem to be attempting to gradually wean themeselves of small,fast combatants. OPVs/Frigates over 1000 tons full load(In some cases far over) becoming more popular as they are seen as more useful over a broader array of missions. And better seakeeping abilities in general. IMHO what really drives the size of LCS is effective, efficient & safe all-weather helicopter operations. Again another of my observations is that ships under 3000tons full-load are hard-pressed at best to meet that requirement.

12-29-2006, 17:22 PM	#260 (permalink)
Master Chief *Military Professional* Join Date: 11-07-06 Location: USA Posts: 131 Country:	Yes, there is a version of the Sov. with VLS I have to find the picture and info on it.

03-02-2007, 14:24 PM	#262 (permalink)
WECIV Regular Join Date: 11-13-06 Posts: 87 Country:	Diesel Electrics are needed to train against future threats. W

03-02-2007, 16:18 PM	#264 (permalink)
IDonT Patron Join Date: 06-13-06 Posts: 166	USN needs more Flight II/A Burkes. With the decommisioning of the last of the Spruance, there is a lack of LAMPS III capability in the surface fleet.

04-12-2007, 05:37 AM	#270 (permalink)
BB62squid *Military Professional* Join Date: 02-25-07 Location: Honolulu, HI Posts: 17 Country:	again, as has been stated and and restated on the board, the reason the BB's are not in service is politics, and the air-centric navy

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
World Navies in Review	rickusn	Naval Forces	7	06-14-2007 23:51 PM
UK Drawdown?	rickusn	Naval Forces	19	05-03-2007 11:22 AM
BMD Article	rickusn	Naval Forces	6	02-05-2007 23:04 PM
Royal Navy ASW, MW,careers, etc	rickusn	Naval Forces	8	12-04-2006 15:12 PM
PLAN Analysis	rickusn	Naval Forces	9	06-12-2006 15:05 PM