Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 12345
Results 61 to 70 of 70

Thread: why the elimination of armor in modern naval ships?

  1. #61
    Global Moderator
    Devil's Advocate
    ArmchairGeneral's Avatar
    Join Date
    04 May 06
    Location
    Boston, MA.
    Posts
    4,668
    Quote Originally Posted by lundgrenr
    However the Navy has already said CGX will not have a tumblehome hull so I feel it played a significant role.
    That is not certain. If they go forward with the 23k ton BMD cruisers, those won't for sure, but they're still debating what hull to use for the standard CGX.
    I enjoy being wrong too much to change my mind.

  2. #62
    Contributor
    Join Date
    05 May 06
    Posts
    313
    Quote Originally Posted by lundgrenr View Post
    The original questions for the thread is why armor disappeared from modern ships.
    Bull, I can bring up the original poster retracting the implication modern ships are floating cans of napalm. Not to mention the fact that statement is utter nonsense that has been hit on enough times in this thread it should be redundant.

    I reiterate. If you have problem with the modern all steel construction ships, what extra protection is it you want? Set this up with a reason, and we have something to talk about. As is, your just continuing to promote this nonsense of pretending they're floating cans of napalm.

    The official story is basically the USS Cole got nailed with like half a ton of RDX and TNT. If there's any truth to the supposition of a shaped charge being involved that should have blown clean through the BB-61's armor package. If there's not that is still roughly the equivalent of a Long Lance torpedo slamming into the side of your ship. Nobody is shrugging that off like it's nothing but Superman.

    Yes we lost 17 good men because someone messed up procedure. Don't blow it out of proportion and pretend WWII ships were shrugging off Long Lance torpedoes like they were spit wads.

    The incident with the USS Stark (FFG-31) back in 1987 had more to do with the resultant fire, despite being as expendable as the USN gets and being hit by two missiles.

    Nevermind the entire principle of your argument about how only the BMD CGX proposal is big enough for serious armor in terms of raw tonnage is nonsense. The DDG-1000s are in the same tonnage range as _the_ HMS Dreadnought, and you are not convincing anyone that was an unarmored tin can.

    Quote Originally Posted by lundgrenr View Post
    Congress, not me is debating reducing the carrier fleet to 10 and I have read it may drop to 8.
    Quote Originally Posted by lundgrenr View Post
    I have no idea if this will work or if it is worth it but the Navy needs a mission or it will become the least relavent of our military forces. We have bombers that can hit any target in the world from US bases. There is no justification anymore for forward deployment of carriers. We only need a Navy large enough to defeat the next largest Navy for sea control and there is then no justification for 12 or 10 or even 6 carriers. No justification for the Gator Navy to be as large as it is. No justification for maintaining a 55 attack sub fleet.
    Now you're lying to my face. These are _your_ statements, not Congresses and not the Teleprompter's. Is there some reason you don't think I'm worthy of enough respect for you not to try to pull this nonsense?

    You did say so. If you want to say you regret those words and take them back I'm fine with that, but do not sit here and try to pretend you did not just drag out the 1950s AF/Army garbage about how the Navy was redundant and flaunt it.

    This comparison with what others have being all the more ironic, because the USN has some of the biggest ships currently, which puts a damper on your "intermediary" size emphasis.

    Quote Originally Posted by lundgrenr View Post
    They are funding the Army and the Airforce and the Navy is under serious threat of being cut further.
    The AF is being forced to cut significantly, and has Congress breathing down their neck last I heard. Gates certainly didn't suddenly become the AF's man since then.

    If anything from what I've heard of them being forced to make major concessions, while the Navy has been largely left alone in comparison.

    Quote Originally Posted by lundgrenr View Post
    Congress and the Obama administration is going to look to make cuts anywhere they can and a carrier battlegroup is by far the most expensive military piece of hardware there is.
    CVNs are expensive single line items, but unlike most hardware they stick around a while. I don't imagine the initial costs and O&M on a AF base are exactly chump change for the same time frames.

    Even if they were foolish enough to demand the USN scrap active carriers before their time, I really doubt they'd go so far as to nix multiple CVNs. The current Enterprise was commissioned in 1960, and has seen many an administration come and go.

    Quote Originally Posted by lundgrenr View Post
    The reality is carriers are under serious threat right now so the Navy needs to make its case and the whole ship building mess and not communicating a clear course on how to proceed has many in Congress doubting the Navy. The Navy is lobbying Congress for the sea based ballistic missile defense in order to get more funding.
    SM-3 isn't exactly a new system, unlike the KEI boost phase interceptor intended for the BMD CGX concept you allude to. That mission also requiring a sensor package that is not considered viable on the Zumwalt frame. Which gets at the real issues in modern ship design. Instead of the usual fanboy "Targetting systems what targetting systems? My super long range [anti-bomber missile] will blow your fighters out of the sky at maximum range 100% of the time."

    He who sees first and shoots first has the tactical advantage. It was true at Tsushima, and it is true now.

    Quote Originally Posted by lundgrenr View Post
    Dreadnought and Gun Grape really argue the opposite sides of the same coin. Both want certain capabilities though each may prioritize those capabilities in a different order. The capabilities each wants can truely only be realized with larger platforms.
    Gun Grape actually made the argument for small, but adequate ships. You're a High-High all big ship guy that doesn't seem to get money is a finite resource, and what the nearest approximation of High-High all big ship aka Britain in WW1 did to them.

    Quote Originally Posted by lundgrenr View Post
    DDX has a design to reduce her radar signiture and thus the tumblehome hull.
    How about the DDX program continues the legacy of the Arleigh Burke-class of making more stealthy vessels? A vessel that amazingly enough, does not have a tumblehome hull.

    If you're going to bring it up, address it properly. The DDG-1000's requirements are to get as close to shore as is practical in order to insure Gun Grape and his younger friends will have NGFS as long as possible, and as accurate as possible. To meet this goal the design team engaged in comprehensive efforts to reduced its sensor footprint.
    Last edited by FOG3; 24 Sep 09, at 04:19.

  3. #63
    Regular
    Join Date
    26 Feb 09
    Posts
    43

    Why do people get so upset?

    I do not believe I have been disrespectful to anyone in expressing my opinions which is the purpose of a discussion board. Dreadnought if you feel I have been disrespectful or others please let me know. To Fog3 it is perfectly OK to disagree or take an oppisite view but I have not lied to anyone. However since you have made that accusation I will reply to each of your positions but since I post from work it will require several replies over time. Here are two, the first article was written by Norman Friedman and it expresses many similar views on the subject. It is copyright protected so hopefully the web site address will work. It has several points I would like to follow up on when I have more time.

    New Technology and Medium Navies

    On carrier reduction what I have said it is under discussion in Congress. Congress has not acted as of yet but cutting carriers is under consideration. Bob Work reports to Congress as Under Secretary of the Navy in his briefing of Congress earlier this year the article expresses if forced due to our economic problems he would be willing to cut carriers down to 9. Once carriers are cut it becomes very difficult to buid up thier numbers again due to the major expense and the fact that the Government may be broke due to morgaging the future in our current bail out strategy and building up so much debt that our kids will not be able to pay it off.

    OSD Considers Chopping Flattop


    File this one under QDR rumors, although senior OSD officials thought about cutting a carrier from the very beginning of the QDR. Now, sources tell us that OSD may actually chop an additional carrier from the Navy’s battle fleet, a move that would take the force down to nine carriers from the current total of 11.

    The Navy plans to retire the CVN-65, the Enterprise, in 2012. The resulting 10 carrier force would be further reduced by one if DoD’s rumored reduction is enacted. Skipping a future carrier purchase doesn’t save money now. Cutting one flattop from the existing force would.

    The Navy’s latest shipbuilding plan – that’s the FY-2009 30 year plan for a 313 ship fleet, the Navy did not submit a shipbuilding plan with the 2010 budget – calls for a total of 12 carriers by 2019. As CRS Navy analyst Ron O’Rourke pointed out in a July report on Navy shipbuilding, the Navy added a 12th carrier to its proposed 313 ship Navy in 2007.

    “The Navy’s February 2008 report on the FY2009 30-year shipbuilding plan states that the 313-ship plan includes 11 carriers and does not include a reference to “eventually 12” carriers, but the long-range force projection in the report continues to show a total of 12 carriers in FY2019 and subsequent years,” O’Rourke writes.

    Defense Secretary Robert Gates endorsed the Navy’s plan to shift procurement of the new CVN-78 Gerald R. Ford class carriers from one every four-and-a-half years to one every five years. The Congressional Budget Office estimates the cost to build a Ford class carrier at $11.2 billion each; the Navy plans to buy 7 by 2038.

    To be sure, there are plenty of obstacles to cutting a carrier from the fleet. For one, the Navy is required by law to maintain 11 carriers. The Navy has an outstanding request for a legislative waiver from Congress so it can retire the Enterprise, which would drop the carrier force to 10 for 33 months between the retirement and the scheduled entry of the first of the Ford class into service in 2015. Lawmakers have yet to act on the request.

    Interestingly, when former CSBA naval analyst and now Navy under secretary, Bob Work, gave his shipbuilding brief earlier this year, he said that if forced by a constrained shipbuilding budget to trim the planned build, he would cut the carrier force to 9.

    Work said that 9 carriers was the minimum number needed to handle a strategy that keeps one carrier strike group forward deployed in the Pacific and one in the Indian Ocean. He said that during wartime, a 10 carrier force could generate six strike groups in 90 days. I’m guessing then that 9 carriers could generate 5 strike groups.

    Work’s former boss at CSBA, the influential Andrew Krepinevich, wrote in the July issue of Foreign Affairs in an article titled, “The Pentagon’s Wasting Assets,” that carriers risk “operational irrelevance” as nations develop improved submarines and increasingly accurate, long-range anti-ship missiles that put the big flattops at risk. Krepinevich is part of the “red team” that is examining the QDR.

  4. #64
    Defense Professional Dreadnought's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 May 05
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA.
    Posts
    14,728
    Dreadnought if you feel I have been disrespectful or others please let me know.

    *Nope not that I have seen. Not at all. Besides I figured if myself and Grape didnt get hit with it all must be good.)

    IMO, The most dangerous thing they can do is to start cutting the carriers. They are very expensive assets but they are worth their weight in gold in many different ways not just force projection.

    *Many people state that certain classes of ships (BB's,CVN,s) are a waste of manpower and money but looking at it from different views reveals the little things many dont take into account.

    Some brief possibilities:

    *Humanitarian missions, food, water and medicine, more then most naval ships can carry and hospitals, dental, vision etc. Water shortages, no problem those CVN's make plenty of water. Power? Yep they can do that too.

    *Teaching platforms, teaching sailors to act in unison, as a team, ergo hands on teaching of sea skills, damage control, professionalism and responsibility for oneself and oneselfs own actions. (outside the norm of protecting the ship itself) all ships do this but the CV's do it with thousands not hundreds of sailors.

    *Showing the flag is a given, nothing shows the flag like a very large capital ship coming into port or sitting off the port. (no disrespect to the others)

    *Economy, where ever you come into port, your bringing business, food, clothing, souveniers, entertainment, things you cannot get aboard ship cultural exchanges etc.

    Sometimes even services to the ship, tug fees, piloting fees, waste extraction fees etc.

    Currently, we have close to 45 acres (Averaging 4.5 acres per CVN) of soverign US property roaming the earths oceans at all times without the need to refuel but requires fuel for the airwings etc.

    IMO, they are irreplacable assests if anyone should have the say over downsizing them it shoud be the CNO USN by consenses. Pencil pushers should just shut their mouths at what they dont understand. There is plenty of dead weight they could get rid of in other places to cut costs but your primary source of force projection should not be one of them.

    Besides those thoughts, they carry great looking ladies that look outstanding in their dress whites.)
    Last edited by Dreadnought; 24 Sep 09, at 14:43.
    Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

  5. #65
    Patron Razorback's Avatar
    Join Date
    18 Sep 09
    Location
    Middle of Nowhere Alabama
    Posts
    151
    Maybe the establishment of auxillary "floating islands" (Ala Mulberry or perhaps Troll platform based, but more durable) that can be towed into place (or self propelled) with significant defenses, supplies, and facilities to conduct support and repair operations while freeing the carriers for theater offensive ops. They would just need to be maintained until needed with the majority of their stores forward based. (yeah I know... cyclones, hurricanes, tsunamis, fixed target -blah blah blah ).

    Best Regards
    Last edited by Razorback; 24 Sep 09, at 17:49.

  6. #66
    Regular
    Join Date
    26 Feb 09
    Posts
    43

    Tumblehome

    http://www.aoe.vt.edu/~mccue/papers_...tal_stab07.pdf

    This paper discusses the tumblehome hull compared to a flare hull. This is simple physics. Flare is required in order for the hull to float over a wave. A Tumblehome hull shape lacks flare and as the report concludes the Tumblehome hull has a major increase in capsizing over a flared hull ship.

    In a Washington Post article that I will have to locate again the design team at the David Taylor Model Basin testing hull shapes reported to the Post the ship typically sinks in 70 foot waves. The David Taylor Model basin can only simulate waves and does not simulate wind which would also have a major impact on the ship.

    My major problem with DDX is the hull form. If it had a conventional hull I believe it would be worth pursueing. As Freidman said in his article the Monroe Law places stealth as a limited value due to the technological speed for sensors. By the time it arrives in the fleet technology will be able to locate it or locate it soon after it deploys. I do not feel this requirement is worth the cost. To my knowledge the problems have never been resolved successfully and any error in the estimated ship weights in the design stage Vs the real ship could lead to disaster.

    I did not use this article to express my knowledge in the previous posts but post it now to show my knowledge is not incorrect nor was I attempting to miss-lead anyone. I learned by basic ship stability long ago when I worked in the Merchant Marine. Behind closed doors I do not know if this was a reason the Navy withdrew its support for buiding large numbers of DDX but I suspect it may play a role. Personnally it is not a design I would wish to serve on.

  7. #67
    Regular
    Join Date
    26 Feb 09
    Posts
    43

    Potential Carrier reduction

    This is the way I see it and how the Navy just screwed up. When Robert Work informed Congress that he would be willing to go to 9 carriers he just told Congress that is all we need. The Navy will now have to re-justify the requirement for 12 if we can do with 9.

    Since he is the Under-Secretary I assume the Secretary of the Navy also feels this way and gave him the authority to brief Congress with these numbers.

    Congress will have to debate the issue but it will be economic forces not military capability based on an individual carrier that will probably decide the issue. I will look but I believe ship building in the 2012 budget proposal just took a 55% cut. If the economy can support 12 carriers the force may remain however if the economy folds I am sure carriers will be reduced.

  8. #68
    Regular
    Join Date
    26 Feb 09
    Posts
    43

    Passive protection

    Wiley InterScience :: Session Cookies

    This is the article on passive protection Vs active defenses I quoted from in my first post but people will need to get ther own copy.

  9. #69
    Regular
    Join Date
    26 Feb 09
    Posts
    43
    http://www.nsrp.org/Ship_Production_...ch_Program.pdf


    This is a new form of armor that may be introduced to the fleet when I mentioned that passive protection does not have to be heavy plates but that still remains an option. I have another study I will post next that goes in more detail.

  10. #70
    Regular
    Join Date
    26 Feb 09
    Posts
    43

    SPS system

    http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/theses/ava...ter_Thesis.pdf

    This is a detailed looks at the Sandwich plate system

    Note that he uses the terms susceptability, vulnerability and recovery in describing total ship survivability.

    Since the original thread is why did armor disappear I focused on passive protection. I believe I made the statement that active defences are indeed important but only make up one element of survivability. To focus on this alone does not make a ship more survivable. Cole's active defenses could not have protected her from the surprise attack. Cole had no ability after the attack to recover and she probably would have sunk if she was not docked. She had to be lifted out of the water to get home for repairs. By definition since she had no recovery she was a kill.

    My point in all of this is that to add passive protection to ships already built is extremely difficult. Passive protection is best placed in the design stages. The larger the ship the more passive protection along with system redundancy, subdivision, and other forms of passive protection can be made and thus the ship can be given the basic capability of an armored citidel type structure again. There is no treaty limits on displacement so design which weapons you want the platform to carry and then build the best hull around them. In the 70s we attempted to standardize the hull and place weapon systems into this hull which I feel is backwards.

    I have never found any study which shows passive protection as a bad thing but it should or needs to be a design requirement again if it is going to return.

    Placing the SPS system on a tumblehome hull probably defeats the purpose of a tumblehome hull concerning radar signiture reduction. On a conventional hull it probably works however passive protection is not about making a ship bullet proof but stopping damage where it can and containing or limiting the effects of damage when it can not stop "weapon type" depending on the weapon we are discussing.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. Australia ’s Hazard(ous) Frigate Upgrade
    By xinhui in forum Naval Warfare
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 27 Nov 08,, 22:41
  2. Carrier killers (an article from JED online)
    By lurker in forum Naval Warfare
    Replies: 172
    Last Post: 28 Dec 06,, 05:39
  3. 2003 CONOPS chp 8-9 & appendix's
    By Defcon 6 in forum Naval Warfare
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07 Jul 06,, 03:38
  4. World Navies Edited and Updated
    By rickusn in forum Naval Warfare
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 26 Mar 05,, 03:02
  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
  •