Interesting new ship "class"

Larry Gude

Larry Gude

Strung Out
February 10, 2018

In local news today, the Llano and Fredericksburg, TX, police departments took delivery of their new 'maritime support vessels'. They're not actually new and are, in fact, US navy surplus. They also won't fit on any waterways this side of Galveston but, when reached for comment, both department chiefs said the deal was too good to pass up. So good, in fact, that the vessels are free. All the municipalities need do is come pick them up. Fredericksburg Chief Smith said they'll use theirs to store all their MRAP's in as putting them in an existing purpose built vessel would be cheaper than building yet another blimp hanger to store all their federal surplus gear. Llano Chief Wesson simply said "this is kewl as ####. Now, my 200 man SWAT team will NEVER again have to worry about being under-supported if we ever find ourselves in a situation where maritime support is key to getting our folks home and safe."

Developing...
 
Gilligan

Gilligan

#*! boat!
PREMO Member
Our local Department of Natural Resources facility is looking at acquiring a range of govt surplus vehicles to augment their capabilities:

1. Surplus USMC amphibious assault vehicles

2. Retired Landing-craft air cushion (LCAC)

3. Various mothballed submarines

When asked, a spokesperson reportedly declared: "We don't need no stinking MRAPs"
 
Railroad

Railroad

Routinely Derailed
The cargo conversion is something a lot of sailors have thought was a good idea for a very long time - we used to talk about it back when I was in uniform. When one considers that the Navy doesn't armor their ships the way they used to, and with cost being the biggest driver in deciding how to meet a requirement, it quickly becomes difficult to justify a purpose-built vessel when a converted or commercial-based vessel would suffice.

Moreover, where surface vessels other than highly specialized ones are concerned, the need for a new hull is highly questionable, IMHO. Smaller and simpler destroyers, for example, leveraging WWII-era designs.

One concept I've had, verging on science fiction, is using a supertanker hull to build a sort of supership capable of some very interesting things in a forward-deployed location for prolonged periods. No doubt others have already thought of things like this. Perhaps the biggest obstacle is that such an idea is non-traditional and makes too much sense.
 
Larry Gude

Larry Gude

Strung Out
Railroad said:
Perhaps the biggest obstacle is that such an idea is non-traditional and makes too much sense.
Click to expand...

The biggest obstacle is that no one makes any money doing efficient things like that. The real money is in the new design, the new construction, the new testing, all of that.

:buddies:
 
Larry Gude

Larry Gude

Strung Out
Railroad said:
Sadly, I concur.
Click to expand...

Well, we, the people, say we want limited government but, we really don't.


We'd vote for the guy promising NEW JOBS! GROWTH! STUFF!!!
Not the one that says WE CAN DO MORE WITH LESS!!!

Even TEA party types who swear they're for constitutional government would support the big money guy because they think limited government does not apply to the role of world cop.

:shrug:
 
Railroad

Railroad

Routinely Derailed
Larry Gude said:
Well, we, the people, say we want limited government but, we really don't.


We'd vote for the guy promising NEW JOBS! GROWTH! STUFF!!!
Not the one that says WE CAN DO MORE WITH LESS!!!

Even TEA party types who swear they're for constitutional government would support the big money guy because they think limited government does not apply to the role of world cop.

:shrug:
Click to expand...

Yes, I get that. In many things, it's not what we're doing, but how we're doing it, which necessarily includes whom we're serving - the people, or the politicians and lobbyists. The best interests of the nation, or the best interests of the crooks.
 
Larry Gude

Larry Gude

Strung Out
Railroad said:
Yes, I get that. In many things, it's not what we're doing, but how we're doing it, which necessarily includes whom we're serving - the people, or the politicians and lobbyists. The best interests of the nation, or the best interests of the crooks.
Click to expand...

Are they crooks if we vote for it?

Defense firms, contractors, need enough business to survive and the government, (we, the people) need enough contractors to ensure competition. By necessity, if those two things are important to the nation, there is gonna be some pork.

I have LONG been in favor of $400 hammers and toilets seats over paying people to sit at home but, policy has run amok this past 12 years or so and we're not even using our military to win wars. We are simply making up business. At least war profiteering in the past has lead to victory. Now, we just spend the money because there really seems to be no better solution. We spend money for people to sit on their ass for the same reasons.

Security! Safety! Screw liberty!

:shrug:
 
N

nutz

Well-Known Member
The concept of a floating base is pretty kewl, but isn't that what a carrier group is? I did get a big chuckle form the article, "because it looks just like a civilian cargo ship, should be able to avoid easy identification." Because all of them have a MH53 or Vf22 on the deck, right? :killingme :killingme
 
N

nutz

Well-Known Member
Larry Gude said:
Are they crooks if we vote for it?

Defense firms, contractors, need enough business to survive and the government, (we, the people) need enough contractors to ensure competition. By necessity, if those two things are important to the nation, there is gonna be some pork.

I have LONG been in favor of $400 hammers and toilets seats over paying people to sit at home but, policy has run amok this past 12 years or so and we're not even using our military to win wars. We are simply making up business. At least war profiteering in the past has lead to victory. Now, we just spend the money because there really seems to be no better solution. We spend money for people to sit on their ass for the same reasons.

Security! Safety! Screw liberty!

:shrug:
Click to expand...

I hadn't thought about some of these things that way before, thanks :buddies:
 
Gilligan

Gilligan

#*! boat!
PREMO Member
nutz said:
The concept of a floating base is pretty kewl, but isn't that what a carrier group is?
Click to expand...

Not by the definitions the SpecWar community typically uses. I was actually quite surprised that something as large as "Cragside" is being set up as a mobile base; the focus up to now has been on much smaller mother ships the size of Sea Fighter or the new JHSVs. But it looks like they have some much bigger ideas too.
 
Railroad

Railroad

Routinely Derailed
Slight change in focus, same general topic:

Excerpt from an article in "Politico" published 2/11/14:

Acting Deputy Defense Secretary Christine Fox warned the Navy on Tuesday to ensure its fleet is fully ready for the Obama administration’s “pivot” to the Pacific.
Fox, a career naval analyst, is said to have ordered the Navy to plan to cut 20 Littoral Combat Ships from its program of 52, and she appeared skeptical about the value of the full program in a speech to a defense trade show in San Diego.
“Given more advanced anti-ship munitions being developed by potential adversaries, I believe it is an imperative to devote increasing focus and resources to the survivability of our battle fleet,” she said. “Niche platforms that can conduct a certain mission in a permissive environment have a valuable place in the Navy’s inventory. Yet, we need more ships with the protection and firepower to survive against a more advanced military adversary. Presence is important – presence with a purpose, and with capability.”
Pentagon testers and service skeptics have said the LCS – a smaller, less robust warship than its older-model cousins – cannot endure the same kind of high-level combat as a traditional destroyer or cruiser. And unlike those traditional “multi-mission” combatants, LCS must take aboard purpose-built equipment to hunt submarines, sweep for mines or take other missions.
 
N

nutz

Well-Known Member
Gilligan said:
Not by the definitions the SpecWar community typically uses. I was actually quite surprised that something as large as "Cragside" is being set up as a mobile base; the focus up to now has been on much smaller mother ships the size of Sea Fighter or the new JHSVs. But it looks like they have some much bigger ideas too.
Click to expand...
O , thanks.
 
b23hqb

b23hqb

Well-Known Member
PREMO Member
nutz said:
The concept of a floating base is pretty kewl, but isn't that what a carrier group is? I did get a big chuckle form the article, "because it looks just like a civilian cargo ship, should be able to avoid easy identification." Because all of them have a MH53 or Vf22 on the deck, right? :killingme :killingme
Click to expand...

The concept is not new at all. Been around from my times in the Nav in the early 70's at least. What would be new if our bean counters actually would pay attention to what makes sense, and publicly tell those that dispense the funds, without fear of retribution.

And the VOTERS vote so.

THAT would be new, and fresh, and make sense, and screw all that cannot see that.:buddies:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top