US Navy christens huge $3 billion destroyer ship USS Zumwalt

[Gilligan]

Well, if it both survives and fights beyond it's weight class, does that mitigate the cost some? Say it can take out twice it's cost in enemy vessels? you know far more about naval combat than I do, that's why I'm asking. The railgun stuff really has the potential to be game changing as far as offensive capability, I think. Knowing what I know of lasers, I think the ability to stay in the fight even in a missile heavy environment is there.

The advertised/expected capabilities are indeed impressive and it will be interesting to see how that all shakes out. But my "beef" is with the whole approach to building very few massively expensive vessels. All that capability is never a substitute for presence and persistence; can't cover much ocean with only three capital ships. Of course those are key reasons why the DDG-51 line was reactivated as an alternative to building more of the DDG-1000 class.

 

[MMDad]

The advertised/expected capabilities are indeed impressive and it will be interesting to see how that all shakes out. But my "beef" is with the whole approach to building very few massively expensive vessels. All that capability is never a substitute for presence and persistence; can't cover much ocean with only three capital ships. Of course those are key reasons why the DDG-51 line was reactivated as an alternative to building more of the DDG-1000 class.

30 of them wouldn't have been unreasonable though, especially if they replace more ships than that. Reduced manning will save a lot over the life of the ships. But the big one will be R&M - if it is as predicted in the propoganda, then these will end up being cheap.

 

[Gilligan]

30 of them wouldn't have been unreasonable though, especially if they replace more ships than that. Reduced manning will save a lot over the life of the ships. But the big one will be R&M - if it is as predicted in the propoganda, then these will end up being cheap.

Experience and experimentation to date with the "reduced manning" concepts have not been good at all. I've been directly involved in some of the earlier/initial experimentation and it was not fun at all observing crew morale plummet as task lists grew in length and sleep and "spare time" deprivation took its inevitable toll. The LCS-class are "quietly" getting a significant bump in crew size, with all the mods to accommodations that go with that.

 

[MMDad]

Experience and experimentation to date with the "reduced manning" concepts have not been good at all. I've been directly involved in some of the earlier/initial experimentation and it was not fun at all observing crew morale plummet as task lists grew in length and sleep and "spare time" deprivation took its inevitable toll. The LCS-class are "quietly" getting a significant bump in crew size, with all the mods to accommodations that go with that.

I believe in the concept. The implementation is another story. I think it's a culture thing more than anything. A "that's the way we've always done it" mindset.

 

[glhs837]

The advertised/expected capabilities are indeed impressive and it will be interesting to see how that all shakes out. But my "beef" is with the whole approach to building very few massively expensive vessels. All that capability is never a substitute for presence and persistence; can't cover much ocean with only three capital ships. Of course those are key reasons why the DDG-51 line was reactivated as an alternative to building more of the DDG-1000 class.

Now be fair though, the plan wasn't to buy only three, so your beef isnt with the Navy planners, but with the results the planners have had to come up with to appease the new masters. I should think 30, or even 20 should be able to do decent projection, given performance on par with expectations. I dont think you can counter a hypervelocity slug.

 

[Gilligan]

I should think 30, or even 20 should be able to do decent projection, given performance on par with expectations. I dont think you can counter a hypervelocity slug.

I would agree with that. But the Navy chronically under-estimates the costs to put new ships in the water by huge amounts and the DDG-1000 is certainly no exception. Ending up with only 3 is what happens then.

Of course they were a bit "surprised" to discover how much the cost to build more DDG-51s was too.

 

[Gilligan]

I believe in the concept. The implementation is another story. I think it's a culture thing more than anything. A "that's the way we've always done it" mindset.

Care to elaborate? All I saw was the collision of unrealistic expectations with reality, and a lot of seriously run down and ragged out crew members the result. I didn't see any legacy culture issues as a factor at all.

 

[Larry Gude]

Well, if it both survives and fights beyond it's weight class, does that mitigate the cost some? Say it can take out twice it's cost in enemy vessels? you know far more about naval combat than I do, that's why I'm asking. The railgun stuff really has the potential to be game changing as far as offensive capability, I think. Knowing what I know of lasers, I think the ability to stay in the fight even in a missile heavy environment is there.

This sounds like unlearning the lessons of WWII.

Why wouldn't another aircraft carrier have made far more sense? The last US super carrier was only $4.5 billion (only!) and I can't even begin to conceive why we would want one of these things over another carrier.

I mean, I presume the operational costs of a carrier and it's support, aircraft, manpower, would be far more but, wouldn't the capabilities be exponentially more????

 

[glhs837]

With the concurrent lose of all those capabilities if you lose one of them. Take out its flight ops, and the carrier becomes useless. Unless I miss my goal, and Gilligan can help me out here, the mission of this class, among others, is to project defensive power in front of the carrier, keeping it alive to do it's job, projecting air power ashore against an adversary. The enemy ships that pack multiple bunches of missiles, whose only real point is to overwhelm the carriers organic defenses and cripple it. These ships should be able to take those out before they get in range to do the carrier. Thuse it's emphasis on laser based self defense, because unlike physical rounds to impact incoming missiles, a laser can actively engage more than one incoming at once, while the railgun slugs move so fast and pack such kinetic energy you cant really stop them.

 

[MMDad]

Care to elaborate? All I saw was the collision of unrealistic expectations with reality, and a lot of seriously run down and ragged out crew members the result. I didn't see any legacy culture issues as a factor at all.

If you put the support on the pier then it won't need to be done by the crew. More like the way the flight crew turns over the airplane for maintenance when they land. Distance support for technical issues. Go teams. Move training and other routine tasks ashore. Why do we still send people to sea to maintain service records and pay? Or the supply system?

I understand that the implementation has not worked, but until there is 100% buy in it cannot work. They have to be prepared to say "all the extra non-critical work can wait." The support I've seen has been severely lacking. They take away the people from the ship, but then they don't have the team waiting on the pier to do the work.

I know that some leadership still sees things like chipping paint as building character. A lot of old salts considered it a disgrace to call for outside help, despite the fact that there are teams across the street from the pier just begging to come out and help. That's the cultural legacy I see.

 

[MMDad]

This sounds like unlearning the lessons of WWII.

Why wouldn't another aircraft carrier have made far more sense? The last US super carrier was only $4.5 billion (only!) and I can't even begin to conceive why we would want one of these things over another carrier.

I mean, I presume the operational costs of a carrier and it's support, aircraft, manpower, would be far more but, wouldn't the capabilities be exponentially more????

If your goal is to provide air support you build a carrier. If your goal is to provide NGFS you build a ship with a big gun.

You would never want to operate a carrier close enough to shore to provide NGFS, so there's no reason to put the gun on one.

 

[MMDad]

With the concurrent lose of all those capabilities if you lose one of them. Take out its flight ops, and the carrier becomes useless. Unless I miss my goal, and Gilligan can help me out here, the mission of this class, among others, is to project defensive power in front of the carrier, keeping it alive to do it's job, projecting air power ashore against an adversary. The enemy ships that pack multiple bunches of missiles, whose only real point is to overwhelm the carriers organic defenses and cripple it. These ships should be able to take those out before they get in range to do the carrier. Thuse it's emphasis on laser based self defense, because unlike physical rounds to impact incoming missiles, a laser can actively engage more than one incoming at once, while the railgun slugs move so fast and pack such kinetic energy you cant really stop them.

No, the purpose of this ship is to carry those big guns close enough to shore to put shells where the Marines need them.

The railgun is not a factor because it is not ready yet. These ships will go to sea with an advanced, yet conventional, gun system.

They also do not have a laser based defensive capability.

 

[glhs837]

I did say among other missions . While traditional naval gunfire might not be effective against other ships given today's speeds and engagement distances, I think the RGs might change that. And of course my discussion was focused on the ships as fully outfitted not the half steps they are taking til the new stuff is ready.

 

[Gilligan]

No, the purpose of this ship is to carry those big guns close enough to shore to put shells where the Marines need them.

The railgun is not a factor because it is not ready yet. These ships will go to sea with an advanced, yet conventional, gun system.

They also do not have a laser based defensive capability.

All true. What the DDG-1000 "brings to the party" is a very large electrical power generation capacity intended to support all manner of cool new future weapons that require a lot of juice.

But we'll still have only three of them.

 

[Gilligan]

And of course my discussion was focused on the ships as fully outfitted not the half steps they are taking til the new stuff is ready.

Some of the terminally-guided gun projectile stuff is pretty amazing....

 

[Hijinx]

This sounds like unlearning the lessons of WWII.

Why wouldn't another aircraft carrier have made far more sense? The last US super carrier was only $4.5 billion (only!) and I can't even begin to conceive why we would want one of these things over another carrier.

I mean, I presume the operational costs of a carrier and it's support, aircraft, manpower, would be far more but, wouldn't the capabilities be exponentially more????

IMO the Aircraft Carrier is as obsolete today as the Battleship was prior to WW2. It is merely a huge target for a cruise missile or a submarine attack. It packs far too many resources in one place. 6,000 men and a lot of planes will go down with it when it is hit.

 

[MMDad]

IMO the Aircraft Carrier is as obsolete today as the Battleship was prior to WW2. It is merely a huge target for a cruise missile or a submarine attack. It packs far too many resources in one place. 6,000 men and a lot of planes will go down with it when it is hit.

 

[Larry Gude]

IMO the Aircraft Carrier is as obsolete today as the Battleship was prior to WW2. It is merely a huge target for a cruise missile or a submarine attack. It packs far too many resources in one place. 6,000 men and a lot of planes will go down with it when it is hit.

The battleship's role was to be the dominant force on the seas and provide shore support, right? And the aircraft carrier reduced them to shore support with the carriers becoming dominant on the surface and able to provide shore support as well as deeper penetration inland.

While I agree the carrier is vulnerable, those vulnerabilities haven't made it's roles obsolete. The carriers were able to defeat battleships AND replace them. The threats to carriers aren't and can't replace it's abilities; a portable airport.

 

[Gilligan]

The threats to carriers aren't and can't replace it's abilities; a portable airport.

That portable air force part is a big deal...its a huge capability that we have in great quantity that is matched by nobody else. But....anti-ship missile technology is evolving rapidly, especially in places like China that see that as a better direction/use of their resources than would be a symmetric response to try and match our carrier strength. The consequence of that is, inevitably, an ever-shrinking area of operations for our carriers..

 

[MMDad]

That portable air force part is a big deal...its a huge capability that we have in great quantity that is matched by nobody else. But....anti-ship missile technology is evolving rapidly, especially in places like China that see that as a better direction/use of their resources than would be a symmetric response to try and match our carrier strength. The consequence of that is, inevitably, an ever-shrinking area of operations for our carriers..

But the reason that the battleship became obsolete was that it was vulnerable to the new threat from the air. There is no new threat on that scale. If there were, would the Chinese be trying so hard to get their own CV capability?

Yes, anti-ship missiles are evolving, but so are the self defense measures.

As long as we continue to fight these limited engagements, where the enemy is not clearly defined, we will not be able to use all of the tools at our disposal to protect the carriers. Carriers will continue to be ripe targets for a surprise attack like Pearl Harbor. If we are ever in a real, full scale war we can use the battle group, aircraft, and other tools to keep everyone far enough away to ever touch the carrier.