|
LingcodKilla posted:Kinda curious why we don’t do that with Arleigh Burke’s. Basically lease them for 10 then sell off to allies. Any country that would want to operate something on that level has it's own shipbuilding industry. A burke is a lot of very expensive ship to operate. The largest combatants being sold directly seem to be medium sized frigates. The Oliver hazard perry frigates have been exported for example.
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 20:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 20:10 |
|
|
By no means to say Canada's hot mess is justifiable, but you also run into security priorities with these things. Nation states get a bit skittish about relying on foreign suppliers for military hardware, enough that paying even significantly higher costs to ensure that they have the domestic capability starts to look attractive.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 20:41
|
|
|
Just curious. I know it’s much too late for this but was it ever proposed to build a super sized amphib assault/floating Dock style ship with a fleet of supporting frigates? I guess like a submarine tender but instead frigates? But giant. Not support ship size. Huuuuge. Crab Dad fucked around with this message at 20:46 on Mar 8, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 20:42
|
|
|
LingcodKilla posted:Just curious. I know it’s much too late for this but was it ever proposed to build a super sized amphib assault/floating Dock style ship with a fleet of supporting frigates? I guess like a submarine tender but instead frigates? Why would you make one of these?
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 21:02
|
|
|
LingcodKilla posted:Just curious. I know it’s much too late for this but was it ever proposed to build a super sized amphib assault/floating Dock style ship with a fleet of supporting frigates? I guess like a submarine tender but instead frigates? If the Pacific Ocean was twice as big as it actually is it might have become a workable concept. Though, the Chinese are building full-sized amphibious assault ships now, with the Type 075 landing helicopter dock. Maybe they'll be crazy enough to convert one in a super-sized fleet tender. The USN is the only other navy fielding floating dock type ships of that size and they aren't gonna do it. Unless maybe someone gets Fox & Friends to talk up the idea. Comrade Gorbash fucked around with this message at 21:05 on Mar 8, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 21:02
|
|
|
Comrade Gorbash posted:Project Habakkuk and the JMOB proposal back in 1999 are pretty close. But neither were built, in large part because you really don't gain enough to justify such a major single point of failure. You could get the same underlying benefits with less cost and more flexibility just by investing in a larger number of conventional support ships and frigates. Awesome thanks. Just an office discussion about super carriers vs smaller ones and why no super tenders. feedmegin posted:Why would you make one of these? Because.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 21:06
|
|
|
Comrade Gorbash posted:Project Habakkuk and the JMOB proposal back in 1999 are pretty close. But neither were built, in large part because you really don't gain enough to justify such a major single point of failure. You could get the same underlying benefits with less cost and more flexibility just by investing in a larger number of conventional support ships and frigates. Is the "[X] Gap" a real risk? Like if Russia says they're deploying their super sub torpedo cruise missile thing, the US spends 100x more on their own? So if the Chinese build a massive mobile fortress from 1984 the US will set out to build 10?
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 21:28
|
|
|
Well, trump already argues about whose nuclear button is bigger. So in a sane world no, but
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 21:31
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:Is the "[X] Gap" a real risk? Like if Russia says they're deploying their super sub torpedo cruise missile thing, the US spends 100x more on their own? So if the Chinese build a massive mobile fortress from 1984 the US will set out to build 10? It depends what you mean by "risk". US/NATO military strategy since the end of the Cold War has pretty consistently been to try and maintain an advantage so overwhelming that no one will want to even try starting poo poo. So, the risk in this case is if PRC or Russian military power gets close enough to or exceeds that of the US/NATO, they may be more likely to behave aggressively. I will leave it to the reader to evaluate the viability of this strategy. It doesn't really imply a greater risk of the continental US being invaded by the Yellow Peril, though, which seems to be a standard misconception.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 21:36
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:Is the "[X] Gap" a real risk? Like if Russia says they're deploying their super sub torpedo cruise missile thing, the US spends 100x more on their own? So if the Chinese build a massive mobile fortress from 1984 the US will set out to build 10? The concept really doesn't make sense in capability terms. It's a big expenditure of resources and it all goes into a major point-failure, in exchange for which you get very marginal real world benefits. Anyone building such a thing would be making a mistake, barring some huge fundamental change in the underlying technology. That doesn't mean no one will make that mistake, but if they do it will if anything make them less of a danger. If the question is, "if the Chinese jump off a bridge will the US jump off too?" - in that case I refer to Alaan's comment. That really becomes a political question. The risk would be if US political leadership was impulsive and ill-informed enough to get in a pointless dick-waving contest (they absolutely are). If they aren't, there's still the chance one or the other party decides to make a stink anyways to score easy points and the administration decides its easier to do something they know is dumb than it is to expend political capital to stop it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 22:08
|
|
|
AlexanderCA posted:Any country that would want to operate something on that level has it's own shipbuilding industry. A burke is a lot of very expensive ship to operate. The largest combatants being sold directly seem to be medium sized frigates. The Oliver hazard perry frigates have been exported for example. I thought for some reason Japan license built Burkes but apparently its just that the two types were built around the same AEGIS subsystems. We sold the Kidd class destroyers to Taiwan, thats probably the largest warships the US has outright sold for a while.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 22:31
|
|
|
Canada should've just bought the cornerstone of US defense budget sanity: the LCS. At least they'd know for sure what black hole that money was going into.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 23:04
|
|
|
AlexanderCA posted:How's the civilian shipbuilding industry in Canada?  All the yards that can build something are building for the navy right now, except Davies. Is Port Weller even open these days? Anyway the government lifted all import tariffs on new vessels almost ten years back, so everybody buys their ships in China / Turkey / China.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 23:13
|
|
|
Mazz posted:Canada should've just bought the cornerstone of US defense budget sanity: the LCS. At least they'd know for sure what black hole that money was going into. There’s even one stuck in the port of Montreal right now due to the St Lawrence being frozen up, easy peasy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 00:10
|
|
|
priznat posted:There’s even one stuck in the port of Montreal right now due to the St Lawrence being frozen up, easy peasy. I'm sorry, those fuckers can't handle a little ice?
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 00:22
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:I'm sorry, those fuckers can't handle a little ice?
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 00:25
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:I'm sorry, those fuckers can't handle a little ice? Nope! And apparently their generators are pissing off the locals http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/canada/montreal/montreal-uss-little-rock-noise-complaints-old-port-1.4557367 In Montreal this means pretending they don’t understand english and smoking aggressively
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 00:28
|
|
|
Started the Fire Lance thread in TFR https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3851258#post481986247
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 00:30
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:They just finished upgrading them to handle seawater. Ice isn't even on the table until at least Block II in 2028.  Fuckin' rekt.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 01:14
|
|
|
Godholio posted:
No they only do that when the Navy is allowed to sail on the open ocean. They're usually quite safe tied to a pier.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 01:29
|
|
|
priznat posted:Nope! And apparently their generators are pissing off the locals http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/canada/montreal/montreal-uss-little-rock-noise-complaints-old-port-1.4557367 That's the model with a steel hull too.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 03:09
|
|
|
Yeah the Lockheed Freedom-class LCSs don't have the corrosion issue, their problems are related to the engines breaking and IIRC some issues with the earlier ships being overweight.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 03:32
|
|
|
Comrade Gorbash posted:By no means to say Canada's hot mess is justifiable, but you also run into security priorities with these things. Nation states get a bit skittish about relying on foreign suppliers for military hardware, enough that paying even significantly higher costs to ensure that they have the domestic capability starts to look attractive. This. The problem is that, as was pointed out above, it's hugely expensive to keep these capabilities intact when there are no projects underway as you run the risk of losing institutional knowledge. It's not just restricted to navies either, you see the same issue with aircraft (see: Bombardier).
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 05:28
|
|
|
C.M. Kruger posted:Yeah the Lockheed Freedom-class LCSs don't have the corrosion issue, their problems are related to the engines breaking and IIRC some issues with the earlier ships being overweight. They also have some serious crew problems in that the automation doesn't actually reduce the workload much and the 40 man crews are pretty overworked, even by navy standards. They had to increase the alloted crews on them to basically the maximum allowable without significant redesigns, and it's still kind of hosed. AFAIK the Navy has finally just admitted the LCS were failures and have fully moved on to the FFG(X) program, which is open to designs from anywhere at this point, because they need hulls that can do the jobs a Frigate should be capable of and not have to send Burkes or Ticos to do them. We're still going to have something like 32-40 LCSs that aren't very good at anything currently, although they'll probably figure out how to slap some Harpoons on (a couple hulls already have) or focus on the MCM module going forward. Mazz fucked around with this message at 09:07 on Mar 9, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 09:03
|
|
|
Naturally, two of the FFG(X) submissions are based on the LCS designs.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 09:24
|
|
|
Gnoman posted:Naturally, two of the FFG(X) submissions are based on the LCS designs. Yep, but to be fair you could probably make Freedom work if you doubled the cost per boat like the plan is. They already have designed lengthened versions w/ VLS for Saudi Arabia. We’ll see what happens, but at least so far this program makes way more loving sense at a glance. I don’t think I ever understood the LCS plan for real, especially building both with very separate systems.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 09:47
|
|
|
As I understand it the original idea was to basically make a corvette big enough to do ocean stuff on it's own and cover areas that don't need a DDG's full complement of equipment and weapons, with a modular equipment setup to allow the ships to be rapidly reequipped with specialized gear for stuff like ASW or mine clearing duties, but things got bloated and the ships are underarmed now because weapon systems got canceled, and the modular concept got trashed. Also I'm sure at least some factor of it was to keep the shipyards running, like with the continued production of M1 tanks and the Virginia class production being split between both Electric Boat and Newport.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 10:36
|
|
|
Mazz posted:Yep, but to be fair you could probably make Freedom work if you doubled the cost per boat like the plan is. They already have designed lengthened versions w/ VLS for Saudi Arabia. We’ll see what happens, but at least so far this program makes way more loving sense at a glance. I don’t think I ever understood the LCS plan for real, especially building both with very separate systems. The LCS only makes sense if you somehow believe you will only ever fight dirt farmers who have no way to threaten a ship - so you can sacrifice all the expensive and useful capabilities to protect yourself or attack a dangerous enemy. The real puzzle is what purpose the cheap ship with few capabilities serves in fighting said dirt farmers. It could probably do ok against Somali and Strait of Malacca pirates. Warbadger fucked around with this message at 13:44 on Mar 9, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 13:40
|
|
|
C.M. Kruger posted:As I understand it the original idea was to basically make a corvette big enough to do ocean stuff on it's own and cover areas that don't need a DDG's full complement of equipment and weapons, with a modular equipment setup to allow the ships to be rapidly reequipped with specialized gear for stuff like ASW or mine clearing duties, but things got bloated and the ships are underarmed now because weapon systems got canceled, and the modular concept got trashed. I understand the idea behind them, where it gets lost is 52 of them with 2 different variants using wholly separate systems, with the surface warfare module never planned for anything bigger than Hellfires. They were clearly never okay in the Pacific, so they ordered 52 boats at 600 million dollars each to kind of fight pirates around Africa and chase speedboats in the Persian Gulf. It was basically peak War on Terror procurement idiocy, just like canceling the F-22 buy because it wasn’t built for bombing dirt. I really don’t care about how the ships were built or their engine problems/etc, it’s how short sighted the Navy was when they asked for them. The minehunter module made the most sense but I’m pretty sure it fell apart the fastest. About the only redeeming feature currently is that the hulls can handle the slapped on box launchers for Harpoon/NSM and have the housing for drones, so they have a little value as littoral anti-ship platforms capable of traveling in areas you physically cannot sail a Burke or most subs. Lots of islands in SE Asia. Mazz fucked around with this message at 14:16 on Mar 9, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 13:52
|
|
|
That whole modular ship thing was tried by the Danish navy in the mid-90's with the Stanflex 300-cl. It was a small GRP ship with a 19-29 man crew, that could be reconfigured in anywhere from 12-48 hours between ASW, ASuW, MCM and oil recovery/environmental protection configurations. The modules were made of STANdardized FLEXible containers (See what they did with the name there?  ).Each ship could be fitted with 4 containers. The front cannon were a separate container, the harpoon launchers were a separate container and so on and so forth. The idea seemed good, but eventually the modular approach was dropped as the crews just couldn't specialize themselves in that many different types of warfares/operations. They were put in three different divisions with three different purposes and left at that until they were sold off or repurposed for other things. There's a few sailing as part of Lithuanian and Portuguese navies now. Here's one in ASW configuration with a VDS. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 13:58
|
|
|
So apparently a Swedish dude accidentally leaked the details of the armor on the M1A2 and Leopard2A5 two years ago. Ooops!
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 14:34
|
|
|
C.M. Kruger posted:Yeah the Lockheed Freedom-class LCSs don't have the corrosion issue, their problems are related to the engines breaking and IIRC some issues with the earlier ships being overweight. Was LCS the one where engineers kept finding alarming amounts of metal shavings in the engine oil
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 14:53
|
|
|
Xerxes17 posted:So apparently a Swedish dude accidentally leaked the details of the armor on the M1A2 and Leopard2A5 two years ago. Ooops! I'm amazed TheFluff is still posting today after something like that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 14:59
|
|
|
Cooked Auto posted:I'm amazed TheFluff is still posting today after something like that. It wasn’t me, I just happened to have to bear the bad news. It's actually one of two opsec fuckups I’ve been tangentially involved in, and I wasn’t even questioned by the security service regarding this one. The other case did lead to that (no it wasn’t my fault, I was just asked very politely about what I knew and then told to please forget it). TheFluff fucked around with this message at 19:09 on Mar 9, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 15:15
|
|
|
The FFG(X) program was a quick read. The NSC seems like a proven platform and would be a good fit. Curious to see what develops.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 16:39
|
|
|
C.M. Kruger posted:As I understand it the original idea was to basically make a corvette big enough to do ocean stuff on it's own and cover areas that don't need a DDG's full complement of equipment and weapons, with a modular equipment setup to allow the ships to be rapidly reequipped with specialized gear for stuff like ASW or mine clearing duties, but things got bloated and the ships are underarmed now because weapon systems got canceled, and the modular concept got trashed. The dirty secret behind the LCS is: the US Navy never actually ran a proper development process, including Analysis of Alternatives. The various requirements were assembled without thorough reasoning. Several years ago, Robert Work wrote an article to the effect that there was actually no good reason for the LCS high-speed capability. Everything since then has been exercises in post-hoc justification, sufficient when there was no real threats, but now that China and Russia are issues...
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 16:52
|
|
|
Warbadger posted:The LCS only makes sense if you somehow believe you will only ever fight dirt farmers who have no way to threaten a ship - so you can sacrifice all the expensive and useful capabilities to protect yourself or attack a dangerous enemy. The real puzzle is what purpose the cheap ship with few capabilities serves in fighting said dirt farmers. It could probably do ok against Somali and Strait of Malacca pirates. To be fair to this concept, that's all our navy has actually done for decades. When was the last time we had to sink a ship?
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 17:17
|
|
|
Hauldren Collider posted:To be fair to this concept, that's all our navy has actually done for decades. When was the last time we had to sink a ship? Reminder that this is the only active ship in the United States Navy that has ever sunk an enemy in combat.  Edit: I wonder how many ships are left that have actually fired at an enemy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 17:23
|
|
|
Hauldren Collider posted:To be fair to this concept, that's all our navy has actually done for decades. When was the last time we had to sink a ship? Iran-Iraq war so 30 years ago?
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 17:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 20:10 |
|
|
Xerxes17 posted:So apparently a Swedish dude accidentally leaked the details of the armor on the M1A2 and Leopard2A5 two years ago. Ooops! I guess that explains why the proposed M1A3 upgrade was amended to have a new armor design, even though originally the upgrade package was almost entirely focused on logistics of making the M1 more lighter, easier to maintain, and overall more efficient.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 17:45
|
|
