Hk40

Several items that did not make the poll.
(1) A qucik response craft akin to the HMS Triton. A multi-hull design craft capable to respond and react faster and is agile.
(2) To field the newer Seal-Team Patrol boats. These are heavily armed quick, and have alow porfile.
(3) Remotely piloted (Unmanned) littoral bombardment vessels to pound coatal defenses into submission.

__________________
~ Gary Mikami ~
Live 'N Let Live!

Otto von Smirf

I voted for CVN's because we need to replace aging ships, and add a couple more to improve the rotation. However, I believe we need to get away from the 68 class and get CVNX in the water soon. The whole design is better. A new class of BBGN's would be my second pick. A few years ago, I decomed the last CGN, and would love to serve on a BBGN.
Otto von Smirf, USN

Praxus

We should build the Montana Class Battleships with upgraded design of course.
http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/i...00/u144964.jpg

It has 12; 16" Guns!

Why????

Otto von Smirf

The Montana's with a modified A4W powerplant, or the A5W plant going into CVNX would be unstoppable. There would only have to be a few modifications made to deal with the shock of the guns. This would alleviate the problem of operating costs, much of which is fuel related, and give them an effectively unlimited cruising range. I think it might also make up the difference in speed, although I do not know the numbers for the difference in weight of equipment between what they were originally designed with, and what would be installed instead. As to CVNX, there are huge improvements in the engineering plant, not least of which is doing away with all the steam driven auxilliary systems. This is partially another cost related thing, as all the steam equipment is more prone to breakage, and consequent cost of repair, than the comparable electric equipment. This is throughout the ship: galley, laundry, scullery, hot water heaters, space heaters, as well as the monolithic catapults (although they haven't gotten the bugs worked out of the electromag cats yet, like EMP). This also translates into fewer personnel required on board, as there are fewer watchstanders, and fewer personnel required for repair work. Recent changes in maintenance policies also result in fewer people needed for that. Other design changes in the plant are resulting in greater overall efficiency, and thus better performance. I will be retired before X is built, but it will be a great improvement for the fleet.

I am a battleship fan, and would dearly love to see them in service again, and I agree with much that I have seen here as far as their employability is concerned, but I truly doubt we will ever see that happen.
Otto von Smirf, USN

Praxus

The Montana would weigh 20,000 tons less then the CVNX so they could put in a scaled down version of the A5W. An advantage of a nuclear reactor is the possible use of directed energy weapons in the future. I don't beleive it is more cost effective to have a nuclear reactor though.

Also in the original Iowa and Montona armor design there is steel, then open space, then steel, then open space, etc. Now adays we could fill much of that space with lightweight kevlar and advanced ceramics. This would greatly increase the effectivness of the armor without adding that much more weight (relitive to adding steel).

Cruise Missiles and the 16" Gun Tubes were built and used for two completly different purpose. The first is used to hit strategic targets(command and control bunkers, etc...) while the later is designed to hit tacticle targets(tanks, infantry, artillery) and Strategic targets (railways and roads for example).

-{SpoonmaN}-

I say the USN bring back 2 or more Iowa BBGs, and set things at about 24 CGs, 60 DDGs (A mix of Arleigh Bourke and the DD-X) and like 40 FFGs (New Design, since the FFG7 are pretty old).
It would also be a good idea to maybe keep a fleet of 8 or so CVNs with the 90 plane wings, and have like 8 smaller carriers with maybe 50 aircraft to back up the bigger ships and operate in peripheral areas.
As for SSBNs, the Cold War's over and i think everyone should cut these back to a much smaller fleet, but keep a fair number of Cruise Missile armed Attack submarines for strike and interception missions. What's the point of fighting a war that's not going to leave *any* survivors on either side?

The Chap

15 Gun Broadside(9, 16 inch guns and 6, 5 inch guns).[/quote]

Says it all.

__________________
Where's the bloody gin? An army marches on its liver, not its ruddy stomach.

HOKUM

A shell with a 200m kill radius isnt too useful against cowards hiding amongst civilians in cities, however would wreak havoc on the east cost of china, e.g three gorges dam!

What about in icy conditions, battleships work fine, what about cvns? would take a lot of antifreeze to stop the planes from sliding around

The Chap

Whilst in China, I was told by officials, in response to a couple of questions regarding the vulnerability of the Three Gorges dam that there were systems to protect it against attack. What a load of kaka. Worst case, I asked, what if? "Then we only lose maybe 10-20 million people." This is all disregarding the use of sub-standard concrete. A BB could to terrible waste to China. The further question is: how much before the regime care?

EclipsetheRuin

We need a giant capital ship, a monster BB that would menece and terriy all other ships....followed by a a couple of new battleships, resurected Iowas, and the current amount of carriers, maybe a few more to support the main fleet, and the regular fleet of cruisers, destroyers, etc...

rickusn

Well boys. There will probably never be more ships than there are now and probably less. OTOH they will be far more potent than ever before.

The new FFG is for all intents and purposes called LCS. Not what was envisioned actually but it will take over all the missions now performed by the FFGs, MHC/MCM, PC with the exception of blue water ASW. But I wouldnt be surprised if they try to fit that in too. How many?Who knows? 18 if DDX gets built 30 if not is a wild guess.

Carriers may fall to 11 because its unrealisticly optimistic to push the JFK to 2018.

There will be 22 Tico CG and 62 Burke DDG.

No BBs or anything resembling them.

DDX who knows but no more than a dozen at most.

OHP FFGs gone at the earliest opportunity. All they are now is glorified patrol helo carriers. No other weapons or sensors worth mentioning.

SSNs will drop if more are not refueled but probably not less than 40.

SSBNs will probably not drop below 14 in the short term. They are meant as a deterent not to be used. If they are used the world as we know it will cease to exist.

SSGNs four. LOL the new BB you were looking for. Make no mistake they can take out any surface ship that comes near them in fact at least four at a time without them ever knowing what hit them. A surface ship vs submarine is strictly no contest IMHO. Alas no 16" guns though.

No more than 36 LHA/LHD, LPD, LSD.

Dedicated mine warfare ships will eventually go the way of the Dodo bird. It all depends on LCS.

All AOE, AKE, AO, AS, ATF, ARS, AGOS, LCC, AGF will be if they already arent MSC crewed and in the case of the last five designations if they exist at all. In fact the LaSalle will, one of two AGFs, will be retired early next year after 41 years of service. The other AGF and both LCC will be 40 at the turn of the decade. AGOS mission has pretty much disappeared. And the USN already contracts out for much of its ATF/ARS capability and will try to pursue this further. The AS mission could well be transferred to land based facilities at some point.

The Logistic ships will settle at 28 to 34 depending alot on whether more AOEs are ever built.

240-60 ships is probably not unrealistic. Not that I like it much but all current indicators point to the staus quo(around 290-300) to far less not more.

But at this point its anybodies quess.

Kipruss

You guys must really like paying tax. Do you have any costings with your wishlists? It sounds expensive.

Franco Lolan

NAVY needs systems 2 deal w/ massive missile strikes against it. right now it has very little.

-{SpoonmaN}-

I think that the problem is the navy isn't really worried about coming up against an enemy capable of anything more than coastal patrol etc.
As such they may not see the need to spend the massive amounts of money needed to build a fleet that can handle a massive missile attack (Like the type that the Soviet Navy planned on).

Praxus

If it were up to me, the cowards and the civilians allowing them to exsist would all be blown up.

Keeping 100,000 soldiers in a country that should be blown up is also a tremendous waste of money.