Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Ask An Expert- Naval Forces

Collapse
This is a sticky topic.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • An interesting exercise taken by British designers. When I first saw the title I thought "my god now big ass destroyers are being called battleships!". Reading I now think it is more along the lines of a big ass cruiser instead. Here is Britain's exercise called Dreadnought 2050. Renditions in the link.

    http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/02/politi...ure/index.html

    (CNN)Torpedoes that travel at almost 350 mph, an electromagnetic rail gun with the range of cruise missiles, a quad-copter that fires lasers, drones made on board and a holographic control room.

    Those are just a few of the things that some of Britain's youngest and brightest scientists and engineers came up with when the country's Ministry of Defense challenged them to envision the battleship of the future.

    The scientists and engineers from defense contractors, the Ministry of Defense and the Royal Navy brought their ideas together in what's dubbed "Dreadnought 2050," an homage to the HMS Dreadnought, a 20,000-ton, 527-foot-long battleship launched in 1906. The HMS Dreadnought "represented such an advance that all other major warships were rendered obsolete," according to a press release from Startpoint, the Royal Navy organization overseeing the current project.

    Startpoint says its mission is to "tackle parallel challenges of providing advanced technology set against the backdrop of funding constraints." Looking at the artist's conceptions of Dreadnought 2050, "cheap" is not a word that comes to mind. Words like "starship" or "battlestar" seem more apt.

    Dreadnought 2050 is a tri-hull design and it's not steel as most battle ships are. It's an ultra-strong, see-through acrylic, Startpoint says.

    The ship does away with the traditional mast, using instead a quad-copter tethered to the ship with carbon nanotubes that would carry power for sensors and a laser gun to take out nearby threats.

    For threats farther off, there's an electomagnetic rail gun on the bow that can fire a projectile hundreds of miles. Tubes in the two outrigger hulls would be armed with "supercavitating" torpedoes, which go so fast that they vaporize the water around them and create an air pocket that lets them fly through the water.

    The aft section of Dreadnought 2050 would have a flight deck for drones that could be made onboard using 3-D printing technologies and a "moon pool," a floodable deck from which amphibious troops could be dispatched on missions.

    Is U.S. F-35 worth $400 billion?

    Control for all this comes from what the Royal Navy dubs the "Ops Room," in the center of which is a holographic command table linking all the ship's systems to commanders aboard, Royal Navy and Ministry of Defense headquarters and even NATO allies, according to Startpoint. The Ops Room would be manned by only five people, compared to 25 on today's ships, and the entire ship could be run by as few as 50, compared to about 200 on those in service now.

    With manpower a major cost for militaries, that's where a big chunk of cost savings comes in.

    While it all may seem a bit of head-in-the-stars thinking, the Royal Navy says that's exactly the point.

    "The Royal Navy needs visionary, innovative thinking and these concepts point the way to cutting edge technology which can be acquired at less cost and operated with less manpower than anything at sea today in the world's leading navies," Startpoint senior executive Muir Macdonald says in the press release.

    To be sure, see-through hulls may not be around the corner, but some of the technologies are here now. The U.S. Navy is testing ship-borne lasers and rail-gun prototypes, and 3-D printing is something even civilians can get their hands on.

    And maybe projects like this will have some of those tech-savvy civilians thinking about the defense industry.

    "We want to attract the best new talent to sea to operate, maintain and develop systems with this level of ambition," Cmdr. Steve Prest, the Royal Navy's fleet robotics officer, says in the Startpoint statement.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by desertswo View Post
      To whoever might know: what is the average duration of tour of duty of a ship's CO? USN, RN, France, Russia, Japan, whatever...

      US 18 months to two years.
      Thanks. :)

      Comment


      • Field- Carrier Battle Groups

        Question- Do CBG maintain CAP or other aircraft (i.e. E-2) in the air 24/7 at all times or do they use shifts or picket ships for protection?

        How has this changed over the years, historically? That is, from WW II to end of the 20th Century?

        Comment


        • From memory, quite some time ago.
          It really depends on the threat time.
          I remember times where we kept aircraft up all night, but I also remember shutting down flight ops at night.
          AEGIS + SUPPLOT = WIN?

          Comment


          • Might it also depend how many carriers are operating together? On the chance you have 2 CVs, might they work in shifts?

            Comment


            • Originally posted by GrayGhost1975 View Post
              Might it also depend how many carriers are operating together? On the chance you have 2 CVs, might they work in shifts?
              I think that depends upon the situation. For example, the Battle of Midway. The Japanese thought only one American Carrier was launching attacks but after so many planes were coming in they surmised there were two Carriers out there.

              In actuality, there were THREE carriers that finally sunk all four of the Japanese Carriers.

              As Admiral Gorshkov (top C.O. of the Soviet Navy) said, "The Americans really don't have a policy regarding warfare. And if they did, they would not necessarily follow it."

              Which is true in a sense because if we had a policy and felt it would not work, then we would do whatever it would take to get the job done.
              Able to leap tall tales in a single groan.

              Comment


              • Satire .....

                Originally posted by RustyBattleship View Post
                I think that depends upon the situation. For example, the Battle of Midway. The Japanese thought only one American Carrier was launching attacks but after so many planes were coming in they surmised there were two Carriers out there.

                In actuality, there were THREE carriers that finally sunk all four of the Japanese Carriers.

                As Admiral Gorshkov (top C.O. of the Soviet Navy) said, "The Americans really don't have a policy regarding warfare. And if they did, they would not necessarily follow it."

                Which is true in a sense because if we had a policy and felt it would not work, then we would do whatever it would take to get the job done.
                One of the serious problems in planning the fight against American doctrine, is that the Americans do not read their manuals, nor do they feel any obligation to follow their doctrine...
                - From a Soviet Junior Lt's Notebook

                "The reason the American Army does so well in wartime, is that war is chaos, and the American Army practices it on a daily basis."
                - from a post-war debriefing of a German General

                Comment


                • Question: What is the Mark number associated with the USS Zumwalt's (DDG-1000) 155mm AGS (advanced gun system)?

                  I was thinking it probably should have received a Mark number by now, but haven't seen it discussed.
                  .
                  .
                  .

                  Comment


                  • During shock tests performed by the US Navy for trials of new ship classes (like this), are the ships fully manned?

                    Asking because ships are fully manned and combat operational in comparable shock tests in the German Navy (like this) - but the USN uses considerably larger explosive charges (4,500 kg TNT at 91m for a 127m ship vs 450 kg TNT at 50m for a 89m ship - the German Navy seems to be using regular DM61 sea mines on command detonation).

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by kato View Post
                      During shock tests performed by the US Navy for trials of new ship classes (like this), are the ships fully manned?

                      Asking because ships are fully manned and combat operational in comparable shock tests in the German Navy (like this) - but the USN uses considerably larger explosive charges (4,500 kg TNT at 91m for a 127m ship vs 450 kg TNT at 50m for a 89m ship - the German Navy seems to be using regular DM61 sea mines on command detonation).
                      Hmm. There seems to be different accounts of the same test. I posted this on the LCS thread earlier:

                      https://news.usni.org/2017/07/18/doc...-lcsff-program

                      The account of the testing on Jackson indicates that a reduced load was used, equipment was removed, and modifications were made for fear of damage. That account begins on page 25.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by kato View Post
                        During shock tests performed by the US Navy for trials of new ship classes (like this), are the ships fully manned?

                        Asking because ships are fully manned and combat operational in comparable shock tests in the German Navy (like this) - but the USN uses considerably larger explosive charges (4,500 kg TNT at 91m for a 127m ship vs 450 kg TNT at 50m for a 89m ship - the German Navy seems to be using regular DM61 sea mines on command detonation).
                        Close to be fully manned, at least in respect to Damage Control parties and engineering staff to inspect and record any damage.
                        Able to leap tall tales in a single groan.

                        Comment


                        • I have some questions about missiles on ships.

                          1. Why are Harpoons still launched from their signature quad canisters angled at 45 degrees, usually pointed directly at port and starboard side?

                          2. Are there vertically launched Harpoons from MK 41 launchers?

                          3. Why aren't other missiles, Standard, ASROC, Sea Sparrow, launched from canisters like the Harpoon? They are usually launched from trainable launchers back in the old days and VLS today.
                          "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by gunnut View Post
                            I have some questions about missiles on ships.

                            1. Why are Harpoons still launched from their signature quad canisters angled at 45 degrees, usually pointed directly at port and starboard side?

                            2. Are there vertically launched Harpoons from MK 41 launchers?

                            3. Why aren't other missiles, Standard, ASROC, Sea Sparrow, launched from canisters like the Harpoon? They are usually launched from trainable launchers back in the old days and VLS today.
                            1). Just because no spent the money to integrate Harpoon into the mk41. It would be techinically trivial but rather pointless - the USN never really saw surface action as a serious purpose for its ships. That is changing with China's rise and they do have a requirement for a VLS AShM.

                            2). Not that I'm aware of.

                            3). Harpoon as an AShM didn't need to be fired in the direction of its target. Once it came off its boost it would come down to low altitude and run down the appropriate bearing to the target. Tomahawk behaves similarly and was carried in launch tubes (BB-61 class) before being integrated into mk41. The other weapons are either SAM missiles that had to be fired at their target to maximize their terminal energy and fall into a guidance basket or else unguided (ASROC) and there for had to befire at the correct elevation and bearing to come near the target.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Josh View Post
                              1). Just because no spent the money to integrate Harpoon into the mk41. It would be techinically trivial but rather pointless - the USN never really saw surface action as a serious purpose for its ships. That is changing with China's rise and they do have a requirement for a VLS AShM.

                              2). Not that I'm aware of.

                              3). Harpoon as an AShM didn't need to be fired in the direction of its target. Once it came off its boost it would come down to low altitude and run down the appropriate bearing to the target. Tomahawk behaves similarly and was carried in launch tubes (BB-61 class) before being integrated into mk41. The other weapons are either SAM missiles that had to be fired at their target to maximize their terminal energy and fall into a guidance basket or else unguided (ASROC) and there for had to befire at the correct elevation and bearing to come near the target.
                              Thanks!
                              "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

                              Comment


                              • Oliver Hazard Perry class frigates? Who is Oliver HP? What they like?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X