Most needed in US NAVY - Page 19

BB62squid · 04-12-2007, 06:06 AM

[quote=Franco Lolan;51986]

Quote:

Originally Posted by M21Sniper

All the missiles designed for antishipping today are designed to kill thin skinned Cruisers and Frigates.
/QUOTE]

Granit and Sunburns are dedicated carrier killers.

Also, it is important to take into account the fact that an Carrier is hard to defend against a mission kill: Destroyed elevators, catapults, or a hole in the deck result in no flight ops.

It's been awhile since I perused a 12-5, but IIRC, Sunburn was primarily an AEGIS killer, and far less effective today than it was in 1998. While the Shipwreck is a dedicated heavy hitter, the last threat profiles I saw depicted it as easy pickin's for SM2's...

Stan · 08-16-2007, 07:07 AM

you dont need to cover all the oceans with subs. you just need to protect your battle groups.

B.Smitty · 08-16-2007, 15:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BB62squid

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

And the fact that they are manpower and O&S dollar black holes that can't contribute much to the current or likely future conflicts.

B.Smitty · 08-16-2007, 16:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stan

you dont need to cover all the oceans with subs. you just need to protect your battle groups.

SSNs are far more than just CVBG/SAG/ESG escorts.

johnestauffer · 10-31-2007, 20:40 PM

Before you can determine what ship/ships are most needed by the USN you have to determine what the primary & seconday missions of the force will be. Absent a clear definition of need, ship design & procurement is a lot of wasted effort.
Battleships are impressive - I've seen them at sea. But they aren't the ideal platform for the 21st century.
The LCS is a high price toy, that is overpriced and under armed. (There are a lot of ships in other navies that could fulfill the role of the LCS but more effectively with a proven platfrom.
The much vaunted DD(x) - or whatever name it currently has - is another high tech toy that is not an design. They are trying to incorperate many concepts into a single platfrom, without the normal development by stages to prove each concept. The minimum crew planned is one weakness. The preoccupation with stealth is another - given that to utilize the weapon systems the ship will have to radiate senors. And so on. Given that only a small number of DD(x)'s will be authorized, the USN is still faced with the problem of replacing the Burke class DDG's - meaning another design, less expensive than the DD(x) will have to be developed.
Rather than always trying to have the biggest and most expensive toys on the block USN procurement should focus on (proven) designs best suited to the mission.

Shuttlecat · 12-02-2007, 23:20 PM

Not the battleship. I'm pretty sure their time is gone. Littoral Combat Ships for me.

Feanor · 12-03-2007, 00:23 AM

More CVBGs. With only 12, and each carrier carrying less and less aircraft with each new generation of carriers, sacrificing any more carriers or plane-carrying capacity, would seriously impair force projection capability.

JA Boomer · 12-03-2007, 01:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Feanor

More CVBGs. With only 12, and each carrier carrying less and less aircraft with each new generation of carriers, sacrificing any more carriers or plane-carrying capacity, would seriously impair force projection capability.

I believe the US Navy has only 11 active carriers on staff today. I think under the current plan, the number of carriers is even scheduled to dip to 10 before coming back up to 11 and then 12.

Feanor · 12-03-2007, 01:36 AM

Isn't it an 11+1 model? 11 active one in repair/maintenance where they rotate?

JA Boomer · 12-03-2007, 02:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Feanor

Isn't it an 11+1 model? 11 active one in repair/maintenance where they rotate?

No, pretty sure with the retirement of the USS JFK...the US Navy currently operate 11 total carriers. The USS Kitty Hawk is due for decomissioning in 2008 (replaced by the USS Washington as the permanent overseas carrier) and the USS Bush is not to enter service until 2009. So there will indeed by a period of time when the US Navy has only 10 carriers on the roster.

Feanor · 12-03-2007, 02:23 AM

Hmm seems you're right

U.S. navy official page has 12 mentioned as current, including USS Bush which is under construction.

The US Navy -- Fact File

JA Boomer · 12-03-2007, 02:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Feanor

Hmm seems you're right

You seem surprised

Feanor · 12-03-2007, 02:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JA Boomer

You seem surprised

Aww. Don't decapitate me any further

I don't remember where I saw the 11+1 thing.

JA Boomer · 12-03-2007, 02:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Feanor

Aww. Don't decapitate me any further

I don't remember where I saw the 11+1 thing.

haha, Actually I think they had that system for a while...after they took the JFK out of the reserve fleet a couple of years back. So your only a few months behind the curve.

gunnut · 12-03-2007, 17:40 PM

Did I answer in this thread already?

I think we should have more evolved Burke hulls. Incrimental improvement of an existing and proven platform is always the safe and affordable plan.

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

12-03-2007, 17:40 PM	#285 (permalink)
gunnut *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 01-27-06 Location: DPRK, Democratik People's Republik of Kalifornia Posts: 9,378 Country:	Did I answer in this thread already? I think we should have more evolved Burke hulls. Incrimental improvement of an existing and proven platform is always the safe and affordable plan. __________________ "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

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

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

08-16-2007, 07:07 AM	#272 (permalink)
Stan Contributor Join Date: 07-11-06 Posts: 375 Country:	you dont need to cover all the oceans with subs. you just need to protect your battle groups.

10-31-2007, 20:40 PM	#275 (permalink)
johnestauffer New Member Join Date: 06-21-06 Posts: 1	Before you can determine what ship/ships are most needed by the USN you have to determine what the primary & seconday missions of the force will be. Absent a clear definition of need, ship design & procurement is a lot of wasted effort. Battleships are impressive - I've seen them at sea. But they aren't the ideal platform for the 21st century. The LCS is a high price toy, that is overpriced and under armed. (There are a lot of ships in other navies that could fulfill the role of the LCS but more effectively with a proven platfrom. The much vaunted DD(x) - or whatever name it currently has - is another high tech toy that is not an design. They are trying to incorperate many concepts into a single platfrom, without the normal development by stages to prove each concept. The minimum crew planned is one weakness. The preoccupation with stealth is another - given that to utilize the weapon systems the ship will have to radiate senors. And so on. Given that only a small number of DD(x)'s will be authorized, the USN is still faced with the problem of replacing the Burke class DDG's - meaning another design, less expensive than the DD(x) will have to be developed. Rather than always trying to have the biggest and most expensive toys on the block USN procurement should focus on (proven) designs best suited to the mission.

12-02-2007, 23:20 PM	#276 (permalink)
Shuttlecat Regular Join Date: 07-16-07 Location: St. Louis, MO Posts: 80 Country:	Not the battleship. I'm pretty sure their time is gone. Littoral Combat Ships for me.

12-03-2007, 00:23 AM	#277 (permalink)
Feanor Banished Join Date: 06-12-07 Location: San Jose, CA Posts: 2,385 Country:	More CVBGs. With only 12, and each carrier carrying less and less aircraft with each new generation of carriers, sacrificing any more carriers or plane-carrying capacity, would seriously impair force projection capability.

12-03-2007, 01:36 AM	#279 (permalink)
Feanor Banished Join Date: 06-12-07 Location: San Jose, CA Posts: 2,385 Country:	Isn't it an 11+1 model? 11 active one in repair/maintenance where they rotate?

12-03-2007, 02:23 AM	#281 (permalink)
Feanor Banished Join Date: 06-12-07 Location: San Jose, CA Posts: 2,385 Country:	Hmm seems you're right U.S. navy official page has 12 mentioned as current, including USS Bush which is under construction. The US Navy -- Fact File

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