Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Return of the Kittyhawk?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Because using an amphib that way doesn't get you any closer to the political objective of having 355 ships in the inventory. The OHPs were fairly toothless by the time they were retired, and the USN was willing enough to dump them before they even had a replacement.

    We'd either be bringing back an old guided missile frigate with no guided missiles, or doing extensive surgery on the ships to tear out the old MK 13 and drop in VLS cells. Not too mention updating radar, sonar, power distribution, etc. All to put into ships without a ton of service life remaining.

    At that point why not just buy FREMMs? You'd certainly get more capability and useful life for what you're spending. Assuming you're serious about needing frigates for an actual mission and not just trying to play the numbers game for Congress.

    Man, I'm feeling cynical this morning!
    Last edited by SteveDaPirate; 14 Jun 17,, 13:39.

    Comment


    • #32
      Well if we are discussing a new hull for littoral ops why not look at these? A blend of the AVTs & ASWs?

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FREMM_...urpose_frigate

      And when I saw the thread title I got all excited and though we were discussing these!

      Click image for larger version

Name:	Kittyhawk.jpg
Views:	2
Size:	109.7 KB
ID:	1470971
      “Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.”
      Mark Twain

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Albany Rifles View Post
        Well if we are discussing a new hull for littoral ops why not look at these? A blend of the AVTs & ASWs?

        Too big, I think. At 7000 tons full load, those ships are toping the destroyer size. Go smaller, think of the MEKO family, like the Hydra class: 4000 tons, carries a helly, 8 SSMs, 16 SAMs, a 5" gun and 2 CIWS.

        Or the fantastic norwegian Fridtjof Nansen-class frigate: 5000 tons, crams a ton of equipment.
        Originally posted by Albany Rifles View Post
        And when I saw the thread title I got all excited and though we were discussing these!
        Perhaps the USAF can recycle the name, if it builds a new low cost strike aircraft? :)

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by jlvfr View Post
          Perhaps the USAF can recycle the name, if it builds a new low cost strike aircraft? :)
          Not sure if they would. Kittyhawk was a Commonwealth name for later marks of the P-40. AFAIK USAAF always referred to all marks as Warhawk.
          “Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.”
          Mark Twain

          Comment


          • #35
            From the comments here:

            sketchesofspain01

            These ships...

            I served on an Perry-class for 6 years, starting when she was "only" 23 years old. It was a piece of shit, and our berthing was flooded with diesel fuel so often that I get pissed and start dry-heaving recollecting it. (Who puts the tanks below berthings? People who suck!)

            Those ships were *not* designed for the roles thrust upon them in those latter years. They were meant to be cheap, econobox ASW helo taxis with minimal AAW and point defense for merchant-marine fleets when the inevitable shooting war with the Soviet Union started - Soviets fire off a missile at our tanker? Oh well better hope to blow that singular missile up, because we can only engage TWO TARGETS at once, and hope they don't fire another for at least 16 seconds, please. Given a ten year shelf life and retire 'em by mid-90s with something better. They are 80s-commissioned, 70's-designed tech with shit-tier operations consoles and RF cross section designs straight from the 1960s when Hughes Aircraft Company still existed.

            We're talking third-gen electronics used well past the mid-2000s. THIRD. GEN.

            The fastest computer on that boat (beyond the Core2Duo desktops) was a fridge-height rectangle (UYK-42V2) using chips from the early 1980s. The *second* fastest box on that boat (a pair of UYK-7's), had CORE MEMORY, eventually upgraded to 16kb of ICs, and two CPUs that were a pair of DRAWERS, each of 100+ circuit cards. It ran on a 12-bit databus tethered to a teletype machine for interfacing and data tapes.

            They're too small for comfort. Their hulls and superstructures are rotted to the point where high-speed runs meant a trip to dry dock to fix the cracks. The quality-of-life is a joke. They don't have storage space for long term ops and they require at least 180 crewmembers (170+ males, with maybe 3-4 female officers) to run 'em; the team to run them requires special training for the *ancient as sin* tech on board. The best-use case for these ships is shooting pirates and counter drug ops.

            EDIT: Third generation computers...we don't even talk in "generations," anymore, but here's a reference:
            http://www.orgs-evolution-knowledge.net ... ation3.htm

            Here's a summary of the AN/UYA-4 tactical data system on board these ships. IT IS SO DAMN OLD.
            http://firecontrolman.tpub.com/14102/cs ... 4-V-23.htm
            I also served on 3 OHP-class frigates when they were only 28. We couldn't needle gun the bilges because the only thing holding the water outside of the people tank was rust and old lead-based paint. The fuel tanks are so thin that they literally weep fuel to the point where we needed a watchstander just to mop up the fuel. There's sooooo much work that would need to be done just to make these ships seaworthy again, not to mention that you can't get parts anymore. We had to pull a replacement part for our SQQ-89 from a museum piece at NUWC in Washington. Link

            Comment


            • #36
              At least the Russians ....

              Steve that is a sad report from the day when Perry's ran the sea.
              Reading your recital makes me reflect on another thread which shared the need for a Ocean going tow being required for the Russian navy during transits.
              The part you mentioned about diesel fumes and watches being set with mops.... yikes?!?
              Old ships like old men should stay near the dock.

              Comment


              • #37
                I realize the Navy is trying to meet the 355 ship goal, but there's got to be a better way.
                • Pick one LCS design and fix the mission modules
                • Order a pile of USCG NSC Cutters setup for ASW (would make the USCG happy)
                • Procure Frigates from our NATO friends
                • Build or buy a different type of ship to make up the numbers?

                Comment


                • #38
                  355 vs. 286 .....

                  Originally posted by SteveDaPirate View Post
                  I realize the Navy is trying to meet the 355 ship goal, but there's got to be a better way.
                  • Pick one LCS design and fix the mission modules
                  • Order a pile of USCG NSC Cutters setup for ASW (would make the USCG happy)
                  • Procure Frigates from our NATO friends
                  • Build or buy a different type of ship to make up the numbers?
                  Steve that is going to be an aggressive building program for the USN.
                  Building with replacing ship due for retirement is the traditional dog chasing its tail..... but at a faster velocity ???
                  Or perhaps ..... regain momentum with our NATO friends ???

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Almost anything but more LCS or the Fast Frigates based off their design. Those ships are nightmares that just keep on giving.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by SteveDaPirate View Post
                      [*]Procure Frigates from our NATO friends
                      Never going to happen. The private shipbuilders will get their Representatives to go to bat for them about all the jobs being lost along with the skill to build these ships if we source them from others rather than home built. Pretty much the same thing said when they got LNSY, Mare Island and PNSY shut down so they had no competition. End result of no competition is a half-assed product.
                      Last edited by tbm3fan; 16 Jun 17,, 21:53.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by tbm3fan View Post
                        Never going to happen. The private shipbuilders will get their Representatives to go to bat for them about all the jobs being lost along with the skill to build these ships if we source them from others rather than home built. Pretty much the same thing said when they got LNSY, Mare Island and PNSY shut down so they had no competition. End result of no competition is a half-assed product.
                        They could buy the designs...

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Here are pictures of the former Taylor (FFG-50) and Gary (FFG-51) arriving in Taiwan after being transferred there. Notice anything interesting?

                          Interestingly, their 1 arm bandit has been remounted. Obviously some of the launchers were kept in storage and they were able to repair/reactivate the magazine below decks.

                          Click image for larger version

Name:	ROCS Fengjia (PFG-1112); ROCS Ming-chuan (PFG-1115) 1.jpg
Views:	2
Size:	48.6 KB
ID:	1471051
                          Click image for larger version

Name:	ROCS Fengjia (PFG-1112); ROCS Ming-chuan (PFG-1115) 5.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	45.2 KB
ID:	1471052

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Still talking about it....

                            https://news.usni.org/2017/09/20/sec...tion-platforms

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              How the hell can an OHP patrol the Arctic!?!?!
                              “Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.”
                              Mark Twain

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by thebard View Post
                                Seen in the Comments section:

                                "In a related story, Secretary Spencer indicated that the USS Constitution is being considered for drug interdiction.

                                "It's an under-utilized asset," said Spencer. "It sits in Boston Harbor doing nothing but absorb resources. That's crazy. It's just out of an expensive overhaul, and is in great shape."

                                Continuing, the Secretary opined, "It's the greenest ship in the US Navy, and perhaps the world. It only burns fossil fuels to cook with. Otherwise, it's 100% wind powered."

                                "Those 44 guns are more than a match for anything that a drug runner could possibly be using," Spencer concluded, pointing to a line drawing of the famous ship.
                                "
                                “He was the most prodigious personification of all human inferiorities. He was an utterly incapable, unadapted, irresponsible, psychopathic personality, full of empty, infantile fantasies, but cursed with the keen intuition of a rat or a guttersnipe. He represented the shadow, the inferior part of everybody’s personality, in an overwhelming degree, and this was another reason why they fell for him.”

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X