Thread: A closer look at USN Fleet Structure

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.

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.

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.

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.

Originally Posted by rickusn

\

Your sadly mistaken.

Care to explain how?

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?

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.

Originally Posted by Blademaster

Care to explain how?

I already have but apparently you havent paid attention.

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.

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.

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.

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)?

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

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