+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 52

Thread: A closer look at USN Fleet Structure

  1. #31
    Global Moderator
    Comrade Commissar
    TopHatter's Avatar
    Join Date
    03 Sep 03
    Posts
    12,615
    Country: United States
    Yes, I read about the new CSG's and all that. Guess I'm old-school and too old change (approaching 30 and all that ).

    Anyway, yeah that does make sense. After all, the FFGs are a platform, whatever their weapons complement might be.
    Kind of irritating to have use an old frigate to support a billion-dollar DDG because some damn fool "forgot" to put hangers on them. How the hell did that one happen?? Oh wait, let me guess, it was cheaper.

  2. #32
    Military Enthusiast Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    15 Aug 03
    Posts
    2,559
    Capabilities do play a major difference.

    During the Cold War, USN had a requirement of 600 ships but that was no longer feasibile. DUring those days, most of those ships were not as capable as today's ships are, meaning they could not do multiple roles at a time. Therefore, they needed more ships at that time.

    Now we can do more with less. For example, it takes two ships to support a role in one spot and two more ships in another spot in the Cold War. Now it only takes one ship to support a role in that spot and another ship in the other spot. So I don't see how the argument, "Can't be everywhere" applies.

  3. #33
    Military Professional
    Join Date
    09 Aug 03
    Posts
    1,317
    Quote Originally Posted by TopHatter
    Yes, I read about the new CSG's and all that. Guess I'm old-school and too old change (approaching 30 and all that ).

    Anyway, yeah that does make sense. After all, the FFGs are a platform, whatever their weapons complement might be.
    Kind of irritating to have use an old frigate to support a billion-dollar DDG because some damn fool "forgot" to put hangers on them. How the hell did that one happen?? Oh wait, let me guess, it was cheaper.

    They didnt forget. Only the first ninteen Burkes were to be flight I/II one for each carrier and one for each battleship. The rest were to be flight III little inferior to the Ticos and in many respects superior. But you are right it was cheaper.

  4. #34
    Military Professional
    Join Date
    09 Aug 03
    Posts
    1,317
    Quote Originally Posted by Blademaster
    Capabilities do play a major difference.

    During the Cold War, USN had a requirement of 600 ships but that was no longer feasibile. DUring those days, most of those ships were not as capable as today's ships are, meaning they could not do multiple roles at a time. Therefore, they needed more ships at that time.

    Now we can do more with less. For example, it takes two ships to support a role in one spot and two more ships in another spot in the Cold War. Now it only takes one ship to support a role in that spot and another ship in the other spot. So I don't see how the argument, "Can't be everywhere" applies.
    \


    Your sadly mistaken.

  5. #35
    Global Moderator
    Comrade Commissar
    TopHatter's Avatar
    Join Date
    03 Sep 03
    Posts
    12,615
    Country: United States
    Quote Originally Posted by rickusn
    They didnt forget. Only the first ninteen Burkes were to be flight I/II one for each carrier and one for each battleship. The rest were to be flight III little inferior to the Ticos and in many respects superior. But you are right it was cheaper.
    Still irritating as hell
    By the way, what is your opinion of the JMSDF Kongos? Built to mercantile standards (like my beloved HMS Ocean) can they be expected to survive an Exocet (USS StarK) or mine (USS Samuel B Roberts)? After all, IMHO, it was the D/C efforts on those 2 FFGs that allowed them to survive.

  6. #36
    Military Enthusiast Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    15 Aug 03
    Posts
    2,559
    Quote Originally Posted by rickusn
    \

    Your sadly mistaken.
    Care to explain how?

  7. #37
    Military Enthusiast Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    15 Aug 03
    Posts
    2,559
    What is the different betwee a LPH and LPD, ie, general purpose v. multipurposee?

    Why do we need an Amphibious command center ship? Why does it require a whole ship to function as a command center ship?

  8. #38
    Global Moderator
    Comrade Commissar
    TopHatter's Avatar
    Join Date
    03 Sep 03
    Posts
    12,615
    Country: United States
    Quote Originally Posted by Blademaster
    Why do we need an Amphibious command center ship? Why does it require a whole ship to function as a command center ship?
    Well, just my own opinion but...

    A dedicated command ship is able to focus it's entire being on directing an amphibious landing, no small endeavor to say the least.
    I'm sure Rick can tell you in a more detailed fashion

    Care to explain how?

    Well, again, just my own opinion, but since the end of the Cold War, the USN has been committed far more often then during it. In order to handle that kind of deployment schedule, you need hulls and lots of them.
    Last edited by TopHatter; 16 Apr 05, at 04:48.

  9. #39
    Military Professional
    Join Date
    09 Aug 03
    Posts
    1,317
    Quote Originally Posted by Blademaster
    Care to explain how?

    I already have but apparently you havent paid attention.

  10. #40
    Military Professional
    Join Date
    09 Aug 03
    Posts
    1,317
    Quote Originally Posted by TopHatter
    Still irritating as hell
    By the way, what is your opinion of the JMSDF Kongos? Built to mercantile standards (like my beloved HMS Ocean) can they be expected to survive an Exocet (USS StarK) or mine (USS Samuel B Roberts)? After all, IMHO, it was the D/C efforts on those 2 FFGs that allowed them to survive.


    News to me. My understanding is that they are more robust, heavily sensored and weaponed compared to the USN versions.

    DC is mostly about the people at least in the OHP cases you mention.

    USN sailors are taught from the beginning(ie boot camp) to improvise before, during and after the **** hits the fan. I hope this never changes. Are mistakes made, are there failures? Yup its called REALITY. You take note, learn and move on.

    Im not keen on the move to automation. I know, I know ALL the worlds navies do it.

    If everyone decides to take a long walk off a short pier I suppose many if not all think thats OK. However its not how I was brought up, live or teach my daughter, nieces and nephews of which there are 27..

    But historically in Combat, in a Crisis, in a Casualty situation PEOPLE make the difference. IMHO there has been no change there.

    I could be wrong. But not likely.

  11. #41
    Military Professional
    Join Date
    09 Aug 03
    Posts
    1,317
    Quote Originally Posted by Blademaster
    What is the different betwee a LPH and LPD, ie, general purpose v. multipurposee?

    Why do we need an Amphibious command center ship? Why does it require a whole ship to function as a command center ship?

    There isnt and hasnt been an a dedicated "Amphibious command center ship" for at least 20 yearsa and if I deigned to look it up exactly probably closer to 25 years, maybe even longer"


    Do a google to check out the differences. BTW the USN hasnt had an LPH in quite a # of years.

    Your ignorance is showing big time. Do a little research and get back to me.

  12. #42
    Military Professional
    Join Date
    09 Aug 03
    Posts
    1,317
    Quote Originally Posted by TopHatter
    Well, just my own opinion but...

    A dedicated command ship is able to focus it's entire being on directing an amphibious landing, no small endeavor to say the least.
    I'm sure Rick can tell you in a more detailed fashion

    Care to explain how?

    Well, again, just my own opinion, but since the end of the Cold War, the USN has been committed far more often then during it. In order to handle that kind of deployment schedule, you need hulls and lots of them.
    1st: The LHA/LHD are the amphibious command ships and have been for quite some time. Even the LPHs(long decomissioned) albeit quite cramped took over that role in the mid- late 70s as the 2 LCC ships built for that role became first Fleet Flagships replacing the large WWII Cruisers(both misslle convertered and all-gun) and then evolved into Joint Command Ships.


    Sorry Tophatter but blademasters whole premise is false.

    If you Tophatter ask me to explain in detail. I will. But you and I both know that shouldnt be necessary. Everything you need to know is on the internet. Amazingly even my analysis. Which is quite humbling actually.

    Suffice it to say in short Ive never seen anyone try to argue that a ship can be in more than one place at a time. And as for capabilities: one doing the work of two is simply laugable. The USN has always had multi-mission ships. It is true capabilities have increaded especially since VLS but hulls matter.

    The perfect example is the USNs push for 82 LCS.

    Sorry.

  13. #43
    Global Moderator
    Comrade Commissar
    TopHatter's Avatar
    Join Date
    03 Sep 03
    Posts
    12,615
    Country: United States
    Quote Originally Posted by rickusn
    News to me. My understanding is that they are more robust, heavily sensored and weaponed compared to the USN versions.

    DC is mostly about the people at least in the OHP cases you mention.

    USN sailors are taught from the beginning(ie boot camp) to improvise before, during and after the **** hits the fan. I hope this never changes. Are mistakes made, are there failures? Yup its called REALITY. You take note, learn and move on.

    Im not keen on the move to automation. I know, I know ALL the worlds navies do it.

    If everyone decides to take a long walk off a short pier I suppose many if not all think thats OK. However its not how I was brought up, live or teach my daughter, nieces and nephews of which there are 27..

    But historically in Combat, in a Crisis, in a Casualty situation PEOPLE make the difference. IMHO there has been no change there.

    I could be wrong. But not likely.
    I decided to cheat like hell and quote from Global Security.org:

    "The Kongo is an improved version of the U.S. Navy’s Arleigh Burke class, displacing 9,485 tons full load.
    Although derived from American Arleigh Burke class, numerous changes include a far longer helicopter deck aft, less horsepower and a slightly different weapon suite. Some of the differences between the JMSDF Kongo's and the USN Burkes are that the Kongo's employ a separate fire-control system for the 127-mm gun, which has a faster firing rate than the USN standard Mk 45 127-mm gun, a back-up surface/air search radar, a more elaborate EW system and while they have the capability to act as a helicopter platform they do not have a haul down system. Full displacement on the Kongo's is larger, 9,485 tons to 8,500 tons and is some 78 feet longer and 2 feet wider.

    Construction was done to mercantile rather than military standards. The Italian Oto-Breda 127mm/54 calibre Compact gun, firing 45 rounds per minute [to 8.7nm anti-surface, 3.8nm anti-aircraft] is the main gun armament aboard Japanese Kongo class Aegis destroyers. This turret was designed for reduced manning, and the distribution of personnel to inside the turret became unnecessary, as it is controlled with remote control. It is possible to land helicopters on the rear deck, but because the VLS launchers in the rear deck, there is no equipment to support the helicopter.
    "

    As for people being the decisive factor, you know darn good and well that you are 100% correct.
    Properly trained and motivated crews have saved ships that should have been sunk and the opposite is also true. Bad D/C or just plain bad thinking caused serious problems where none should have been (Remember HIJMS Taiho and USS Oriskany)?

  14. #44
    Military Professional
    Join Date
    09 Aug 03
    Posts
    1,317
    Very strange: "Construction was done to mercantile rather than military standards. "

    I missed that somehow or it didnt register or I forgot. As I have read everything on globalsecurity. LOL

    But I wonder what the actual differences are?

    Anyone know?

    The Japanese went to great expense to enlarge their version and upgrade some of the weapon and sensor systems(as noted by Tophatter). My Combat Fleets details the enlargement, improvements and additions also but says nothing on the building standards. Also their version cost about $1.5B each vs $800+m each for the USN version in 1995 dollars.

    It would seem "very strange" not build the Japanese version as robust as the US version.

    Ive seen some discussion on the difference between mercantile and miitary standards but it escapes me at the moment.

    Im off to search now.

    BTW posting the info from globalsecurity isnt cheating. LOL

  15. #45
    Global Moderator
    Comrade Commissar
    TopHatter's Avatar
    Join Date
    03 Sep 03
    Posts
    12,615
    Country: United States
    Quote Originally Posted by rickusn
    Very strange: "Construction was done to mercantile rather than military standards. "
    I missed that somehow or it didnt register or I forgot. As I have read everything on globalsecurity. LOL
    But I wonder what the actual differences are?
    Anyone know?
    It would seem "very strange" not build the Japanese version as robust as the US version.
    Ive seen some discussion on the difference between mercantile and miitary standards but it escapes me at the moment.
    BTW posting the info from globalsecurity isnt cheating. LOL
    Well, the biggest difference I've read about is simply cost. It's cheaper to build them to mercantile standards. Although I know you mean structually
    My guess is, less stringent (and costly) specs for well....stuff
    I'll shoot an email to Dick Landgraff and see if he can give me a few pointers

    As I mentioned HMS Ocean is also built to merc standards.

    I know it's not cheating, just poking a little fun at meself

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

     

Similar Threads

  1. Carrier Battle Group Essay
    By rickusn in forum Naval Warfare
    Replies: 56
    Last Post: 05 Sep 07,, 18:27
  2. Annual Naval Review(Quite long)
    By rickusn in forum Naval Warfare
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 19 Mar 06,, 19:39
  3. USN 30-Year Fleet Structure Plan
    By rickusn in forum Naval Warfare
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 28 Mar 05,, 23:45
  4. USN 30-Year Fleet Structure Plan
    By rickusn in forum Naval Warfare
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 25 Mar 05,, 07:37
  5. Russian Navy
    By rickusn in forum Naval Warfare
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 17 Feb 05,, 04:55

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts