Comments on: Anti-Missile Ship Planned

By: Graham Strouse

Graham Strouse — Tue, 04 Sep 2007 07:00:53 +0000

I’m a softie for big surface ships but frankly, the US carrier-based surface fleet & its escorts are rapidly becoming defunct. They’re too vulnerable to swarm attacks, wave attacks & advanced (but relatively cheap) diesel-electric submarines with heavy ordnance, especially in conjunction. Our nuclear submarine fleet is by far our greatest tactical and strategic (especially with the converted SSGNs & the somewhat ironically named USS Jimmy Carter–a Seawolf-variant with intelligence-gathering and SEAL-deployment capability).
But just for the sake of argument, let’s say we want to build some CGNs. I would model them in part on Germany’s WWII light battleships/pocket battleships & partly on the big cruisers Russia built towards the end of the Cold War–a big ship that can take care of itself in all three dimensions.
Requirements:
1) Enough mass (including old-fashioned armor, particularly along the belt & especially in the bulge) to provide littoral survivability.
2) Good speed & an off-the-shelf reactor, if there is such a thing. Nuclear ships DO tend to be lower maintenace when it comes to fuel over the long haul. Anyway, I’d say 31 knots or so would be fine. That’s fast enough to act as a fleet escort & command ship. In littoral waters, speed is not essential for a big ship.
3) Less gee-whiz tech. More off-the-shelf affordability. Look, there ain’t nothing wrong with using stuff we’ve got. And if we can reduce the radar or sonar signature some, groovy. But not if it makes the ship less survivable or so expensive that we can’t afford to risk it. Get serious about off-the shelf.
4) Heavy ASW battery & helo complement & a heavy SAM/AA array–go for volume here. Fancy missiles get expensive when you get into power projection roles. You also run out of them real fast.
(The Russians were REALLY thorough in this department–especially ASW–because they knew our sub fleet was lethal. We’re at risk now from the new diesel-electrics. We might even want to consider something along the lines of the re-designed Hyuga & Ise…the WWII hybrid BB/carriers. Anything this big out to be versatile. At the least it ought to have a stretch aft & a healthy number of ASW helos).
5) Land attack ability. This means guns folks, preferably guns with a large ammo capacity and ROF. And enough dumb rounds to make fire support affordable. The biggest practical guns available, please. That might mean 155s, with twin or triple turrets (two or three) that would make for some decent NGFS.
Shoot, one might consider ML rocket platforms like the Chinese 52B destroyers for indirect fire. The multi-rocket missile platform was one of Stalin’s better ideas. Never seems to get old. Be creative here.
6) Adequate ASM capability backed by rapid-firing secondary armament (navalized 30 mm bushmasters?) for dealing with swarm attacks & small boats. I’m just shooting from the hip at this point.
7) Hardened electronics & command capabilities.
8) Rapid production & reasonable unit cost. I believe the estimate for a total overhaul of Wisconsin and Missouri came to 1.5 billion each. If we get into DD(X) range & 10 year deployment ranges, then we might as well trust re-vamp the old wagons with more ASW & SAM capability.
I’m just brain-storming. Feel free to nitpick. Or email at grahamcstrouse@yahoo.com. Give me a holler. We can design the perfect CGN. Then we sell it to the Navy, get rich, move to Russia and buy out the oligarchs. ;)
–Graham

By: Max

Max — Tue, 31 Jul 2007 18:26:48 +0000

I don’t know who put that link on the word “training” in my last posting, but it is unwelcome. Put your links in your own postings, please.

By: mike

mike — Tue, 31 Jul 2007 16:36:03 +0000

perhaps some people MISSED the little google earth snafu with china. china is also building balistic missile subs. however they would NOT be my top concern. while china may be semi hostile towards the US politically, I think they realize 2 very important things. 1 in an all out fire fight even with their limitted high tech long range offense they stand very little chance against the US. all those troops are worthless unless it turns in to a US led invasion… since there’s no way for them to all make it to our soil. second is thier economy. no US no money, no way will that fly.
not that it would matter. NASA let the cat out of the bag on the US ability to track ANY and all submarines from satalites simply by monitoring the water they displace while submerged. go deep but the US can still track you.
also the cole was NOT hit by a torpedo. it was a suicide bomb on a small boat.
as far as the navy’s need for new ships. I can see both of these being of use. a lower cost GT powered cruiser to protect the fleet makes sense. lower cost is good. since one of the tactics used by the US navy since the cold war is to give off a false radar signature on screen ships to make them a larger target for radar guided anti shipping missiles. now the larger nuclear powered ship would be used closer to hotspots to deter the launch of nuclear tipped ballistic misiles (aka off the coast of North Korea).

By: nb

nb — Mon, 30 Jul 2007 14:21:41 +0000

Interesting about the size increase of the missile for the this new proposed ABM missile ship. You’re getting into a silo that could perhaps support SRBM (say Pershing II size), or even ICBM’s.

By: Max

Max — Sun, 29 Jul 2007 23:24:29 +0000

“Opting for CGN’s would offer fewer hulls that cost more, which in turn make them higher value targets themselves. The only advantage is long legs.“
This argument is completely wrong, with all due respect to “chiefkent”. He should remember the standing Navy doctrine that the only ship that really matters is the Carrier. All others (including the CGN’s, CG’s, DDG’s, and FF’s) are EXPENDABLE, because they only serve one purpose: buy enough time to get the Carrier’s planes off the deck to deliver the (you know what) :-).
Even not considering the nuclear war doctrine, the Carrier’s escorts are still expendable. Any other mission like shore bombardment is a secondary mission for a CGN, CG, or DDG.
Therefore, arguing that being nuclear-powered makes them a higher-value target is non sequitur (it does not follow). The only true high value target is a Carrier.
Nuclear-powered ships are highly desirable, even with the extra expense of training.
And, as far as the submarine threat goes, ALL SURFACE SHIPS ARE TARGETS, just ask the bubbleheads :-). The best ASW platform is another submarine, not a surface ship. But we need both to do the job most effectively.
(Ex-CGN sailor)

By: William A. Peterson

William A. Peterson — Fri, 27 Jul 2007 22:29:25 +0000

To the folks experiencing a ‘disconnect’…
Please go back and read the article, again!
The larger ship design is the one that would be optimized for the BMD mission, while the smaller, Zumwalt-class vessel would be the supposed Carrier escort!
As to the problems with the Nuclear power plants, you’re part right…
Initial build cost is a lot higher, and, yes, personnel retention is a BIG problem (especially if we’re going to be building a lot more civilian Nuclear Power Plants!)…
But, the long term cost of a Nuclear powered vessel, once you include the cost of the fuel to keep it going, and the cost of sending fuel ships out to re-fuel the conventional cruiser, is MUCH lower!
Hey! Maybe we can hire Iranian Nuclear Power plant technicians to run our new Nuke Cruisers! :->

By: justbill

justbill — Fri, 27 Jul 2007 21:51:46 +0000

Jeffery Hamilton wrote, “I am experiencing a disconnect, so someone please enlighten me; how is an anti-ballistic missile ship an effective escort for a carrier battle group?“
The Chinese have been jabbering about developing a ballistic missile carrier killer for some time. It’s been mentioned on other national security/defense websites.

By: Jeffery Hamilton

Jeffery Hamilton — Fri, 27 Jul 2007 18:50:57 +0000

I am experiencing a disconnect, so someone please enlighten me; how is an anti-ballistic missile ship an effective escort for a carrier battle group? Last time I was privy to ballistic missle tech, they weren’t well-suited to strikes against a (very) mobile target. And using ships for coastal defense outside home waters place them at increased risk of being targeted by hostile forces?
I agree with previous posts indicating escorts for nuclear carriers should themselves be nuclear powered simply to keep up. However isn’t the threat profile now aircraft, submerged approaches and anti-ship missiles (which are much shorter ranged and of a much flatter trajectory)?

By: Byron Skinner

Byron Skinner — Fri, 27 Jul 2007 16:07:04 +0000

Good Morning Folks,
To clearify a point brought up by John Kenney. Both a Sidewinder and a Sparrow missile have made successful intercepts after being launched from a sumerged SSN with VLT’s. The Navy is planning a SSN/VTL test of the Standard Missile sometime later this year or next Spring.
The KEI Missile as I recall has an internal gudience system.
ALLONS,
Byron
“Stewart’s Platoon”

By: Ron

Ron — Fri, 27 Jul 2007 15:41:02 +0000

The existing hulls of the 4 remaining Iowa class Battleships could be modernized for a tiny fraction of the cost of developing a 25,000 ton cruiser, and be a hell of a lot harder to kill. With modern smart munitions and missle launchers, they could provide both an escort and shore bombardment functions.
Much like the many thousands of leftover M113 “ACAV” hulls rotting in warehouses from the Vietnam war, there is much more profit in R & D (which produces no real deliverables) then in upgrading and using what you already have.