Comments on: DDG 1000 Could Take Fatal Hit

By: pfcem

pfcem — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 05:09:12 +0000

DC2,
No the DDG-1000 was never intended to replace the Ticonderogas. The “follow-on” CG(X)/CGN(X) are intended to replace the Ticonderogas.
The latest that I have heard is that the USN plans to replace the 22 remaining Ticonderogas with 14 CG(X) “escort cruisers” (essentially 14,000 ton DDG-1000 hull fitted for fleet escort/defense rather than littoral/NSFS) with the 1st to be ordered in FY2011 and 5 CGN(X) “BMD cruisers” (20,000–25,000 nuclear-powered ships with a more conventional flared bow) — the large size of the CGN(X) dictated mostly by the proposed 40″ diameter & 39′ long Northrop Grumman Kinetic Energy Interceptor (KEI) which requires a launch tube the size of 6 Mk-41 cells.

By: Old Crusty Chief

Old Crusty Chief — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 22:13:37 +0000

Re: DC2, EM2, PHIBOPS, etc.
Amphibious Operations really are something of the past… if you’re thinking of the opposed movement of troops and materiel from ship to shore with the transitional pause on the beach. That truly is a relic.
However, if you think of it as simply a forcible entry it takes on a different color. I can’t recall whether OMFTS (Operational Manuever From The Sea) or STOM (Ship To Objective Maneuver) is the jargon-of-the-moment, but they both describe essentially the same thing: skipping the transition at the beach by leveraging the mobility provided by helos and the V-22, AAAV & EFV, and the heavy-lift capability of the LCAC. Its still Marines kicking down an unfriendly door.
And those Marines still need accurate fires to suppress or kill the bad guys. The Navy is bound by law (and honor) to provide it to them via Naval Surface Fire Support; as they have been since Presley O’Bannon went tear-assing around Tripoli. Again, the only difference is the leverage provided by modern technology.
The ability to hit a point target, repeatedly if need be, obviates the need for large volumes of fire to treat that target. The small diameter bomb is but the latest fruit of the every shrinking “circular probable error” tree. That reasoning should make the 155mm AGS sufficient for most NSFS requirements.
The problems that arise are ones of physics and time.
Regardless of the ability of the AGS to hit a gnat’s ass at 100nm, the gun is only as good as the number of rounds in the magazine. The size of the deep mag on a ship is quite naturally limited to the size of the hull. Shoot those rounds and its a trip off the gun line to the AE for an unrep of more rounds and powders. The same thing (plus money) that made the argument for NSFS with Tomahawks and Standard missles just plain silly. Small ships just can’t carry enough of anything to provide credible and sustainable NSFS to the Marines (or Army for that matter) during the critical opening phase of a forced entry.
The battleship can do both. Whereas the enormous blast of a 16″ round can do wonders for reducing the enemy, it also has the capacity to put sub-caliber rounds on point targets at far greater ranges than the erstwhile AGS. Plus, the magazine capacity of a BB absolutely dwarfs that of a cruiser or destroyer thus giving the ship a long dwell time on the gun line ready to answer calls for fire.
As for the engineering questions, why is it that we must stick to the plant that’s there? Is it less of an engineering/architectural problem to remove boilers and replace them with GTM plants than to dream up a entirely new form of propulsion for DDG-1000? In the time we’ve lost waiting for DDG-1000 to hit the water we could have used the four IOWAs to test all manner of things by replacing one power plant at a time. And while we’re at it, why not pull out all those obsolete 5″/38s and test various iterations of the AGS, or use the space for VLS? We could have used one of the 16″/50 turrets to test crazy ideas for propellants, automation, new rounds, etc. without neutering the ship if something went wrong… as you would with a ship with only one gun.
Guys, we could go on all week with this and not exhaust all the great ideas. Its a damned shame that Ted Yazlowski doesn’t have the USNFSA.ORG site up anymore. There was a TON of info there that makes the case for the BBs better than I can ever dream of doing.
Cheers,
Chief B.

By: EM2(SS)

EM2(SS) — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 19:06:47 +0000

DC2: I am in complete agreement with you on this:
“Today we man a ship to the minimum requirements for watch stations after automation has been added. So what happens when you have a main engine room fire? It’s all fun and games until you are treading water for a couple of days.“
We need larger manning on combat vessles for so many reasons: DC and firefighting, flex in case of injuries, illness, leave or casualties, the list goes on. A combat ship needs higher manning in order to stay combat effective. Minimal manning is just plain stupid, IMHO.
However, I will respectfully disagree with you on the DDG-1000. From my perspective, the whole thing is a class act boondoggle. It’s attempting too many technological leaps forward, when we just need new ships –period.
If we need artillery support for the Marines, then make it smaller, and specialized to work with them and their battle groups. But this ship seems to be too much of an attempt to make it one-ship-fits-all-needs, and adding too much untested design and ideas. Incrimental improvements are fine, but this seems like they are trying to jump a generation or three, and they failed.
I’m not against rail guns, or anything else they are trying to do… but we need new ships now. And for a much lower price tag.

By: George Skinner

George Skinner — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 22:49:08 +0000

I’m sure this’ll provoke a howl of outrage from Marines and the old Chief, but is naval fire support even NEEDED anymore? When was the last time that ANYBODY launched an amphibious assault on a coastline? Such an assault was used as a feint in the 1991 Gulf War, but I don’t think there’s been a major assault since Inchon.
The use of battleships for fire support was always more of a function of their availability rather than having been designed as such for a primary role. Battleships were meant to kill other battleships, and were really surpassed in that role after WW1. The Iowas were expensive to operate and limited in how close they could get to shore. Too bad that the Arsenal Ship proposal was nixed — a purpose-built vessel for fire support would make much more sense.

By: DC2 Jennings

DC2 Jennings — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 21:13:12 +0000

The fact that this ship is going away is HUGE. What is to replace the Tycos? The Navy has recognized the shortcomings of fire support from Naval ships. That is why this gun will have increased range.
The Iowas were great in their own day and age. I was amazed by their looks when I saw them in Norfolk in the early 90s. But their day is passed. The days of boiler fired ships are gone and I would not imagine what a refit would involve. Basically creating a new ship. And I was on a 50 year old ship doing Med Cruises back in the early 90’s. That sucked, especially as a Damage Controlman or any other engineering rate.
We cannot continue to focus on brown water operations at the expense of our blue water Navy. We need to prepare for all eventualities in war, not just what is happening today.
This sucks.
DC2

By: EM2(SS)

EM2(SS) — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 16:43:49 +0000

Would someone promote Old Crusty Chief to SecNav, please? Thanks!
I think that too many people in the Pentagon and the whole procurement system have fallen in love too much with high tech equipment at the expense of realistic, tried and tested systems. At least OCC has a grip on reality. But reality and Washington DC have never really met, have they?
Yes, we need to have a constantly evolving R&D process, but we also need to keep the shipyards open, and keep enough hulls in the water to allow for maintenance, down time, or God forbid –battle damage. Do we have that ability now? Not so much.
And Mike S is right –the Chinese are preparing for a scrap, even if we are not. We need to have both the technology and the numbers of hulls ready for that eventuality.
Regarding the BBs –I’m all for bringing them back. They are a huge deterrence force, just by their presence alone. The mere act of refitting them and sending them on a world tour (or just around the Persian Gulf), showing the flag would definitely send a big, 16″ message around the world. Go for it. If the B-52 can still be in service, so can the BB.

By: G

Wed, 23 Jul 2008 09:27:34 +0000

More submarines, please.

By: pfcem

pfcem — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 05:28:53 +0000

DopplerDave,
You obviously no nothing of NSFS. This is the simplest way I can put it for ignorant people such as yourself…If a ~100 lb warhead containing ~24 lbs of explosive were the be-all-that-is-all there would not currently be nor would there ever have been anything more. ;)
Like I said, when the USMC says that it would take at least 24 DDG-1000 to fulfill the need you KNOW something is wrong.

By: Mike S

Mike S — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 23:43:41 +0000

What is going to be left of the surface fleet after dozens of swarming chinese subs come out of their mountain cave at one time and overwhelm the few subs we have watching????
They have been planning and building for a scrap with us for 25 years and dont hink they wont do it for one second.
we are still building for the last war, not the next one.….fools we are!

By: Old Crusty Chief

Old Crusty Chief — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 22:14:06 +0000

Re: DopplerDave
Raising Bravo Sierra on your BB dismissal.
The IOWAs would more than adequately have fulfilled ALL USMC NSFS requirements and can fulfill them in the future. The anti-BB cabal have used the 16″/50’s range of 24 miles as a red herring from jump street while at the same time spending money like drunks on “systems” that have yet to see day one in the Fleet.
IIRC, it wasn’t even US ships that provided the NSFS at Basra but the Brits with their 4″ guns because our ships couldn’t get close enough for our 5″ guns because of draft constraints. Ain’t THAT a pisser, boys?
The money we’ve irretrievably pissed away on DDG-1000 (nee DD-21, nee DDx) could have given us the refit, the crew, the fuel, the maintenance, and the ammo for all four BBs plus enough to buy every Sailor a beer for his birthday. What’s more, the programs that date all the way back to the 60s could have given us in short order rounds that could have hit targets in Baghad.
With regard to the argument about the firepower of a 155mm round: Sure, 12 rounds of 155mm are much better than 12 rounds of 127mm (5″), but 9 rounds of 16″ makes the 155mm seem rather… well, pathetic. Or, why not several rounds from a 8″ gun? We had that, too. Tested in USS HULL back in the latter part of the 70s. The Mk71 MCLW worked just fine, even when fitted on too small a hull. Intended for the SPRUANCE and TICO hulls, it was canceled for approximately the same reasons every major caliber gun has been sent to the breakers since Viet Nam: the fighter, submarine, and missile mafias don’t want the graybearded black shoes taking one iota of “their” territory.
And, your logistics argument is flawed, too. EVERY system has its own logistics and manpower tail.… The vaunted 155mm AGS is different only in that it will have to be created from scratch, rather than reconstituted.
Cheers,
Chief B.
P.S. There’s a Master Chief Gunner’s Mate hereabouts who ought to report in on this about now.…