|
Post by oldpop2000 on Aug 4, 2017 11:16:37 GMT -6
Military procurement plans are generally a result of an overall assessment of the current and future geostrategic situation in the world. This reassessment should be accomplished every four years and has been done so. The last was in 2014. The US Navy, on December 15,2016 released a new force-structure goal that called for the achieving and maintaining a fleet of 355 ships of certain types and numbers. This goal was as a result of a Force Structure Assessment. The new goal of 355 supplants the previous goal of a 308-ship force-level. Here is what the Navy said:
[the] Navy’s Force Structure Assessment (FSA) was developed in an effort to determine the right balance of existing forces, the ships we currently have under construction and the future procurement plans needed to address the ever-evolving and increasingly complex threats the Navy is required to counter in the global maritime commons.... The number and mix of ships in the objective force, identified by this FSA, reflects an in-depth assessment of the Navy’s force structure requirements—it also includes a level of operational risk that we are willing to assume based on the resource limitations under which the Navy must operate. While the force levels articulated in this FSA are adjudged to be successful in the scenarios defined for Navy combat, that success will likely also include additional loss of forces, and longer timelines to achieve desired objectives, in each of the combat scenarios against which we plan to use these forces. It should not be assumed that this force level is the “desired” force size the Navy would pursue if resources were not a constraint—rather, this is the level that balances an acceptable level of warfighting risk to our equipment and personnel against available resources and achieves a force size that can reasonably achieve success. The roughly 15% increase in the new 355-ship plan over the previous 308-ship plan can be viewed as a Navy response to, among other things, China’s continuing naval modernization effort;2 resurgent Russian naval activity, particularly in the Mediterranean Sea and the North Atlantic Ocean;3 and challenges that the Navy has sometimes faced, given the current total number of ships in the Navy, in meeting requests from the various regional U.S. combatant commanders for day-to-day in-region presence of forward-deployed Navy ships.4 To help meet requests for forward-deployed Navy ships, Navy officials in recent years have sometimes extended deployments of ships beyond (sometimes well beyond) the standard length of seven months, leading to concerns about the burden being placed on Navy ship crews and wear and tear on Navy ships.5 Navy officials have testified that fully satisfying requests from regional U.S. military commanders for forward-deployed Navy ships would require a fleet of substantially more than 308 ships. For example, Navy officials testified in March 2014 that fully meeting such requests would require a Navy of 450 ships.
In releasing its 355-ship plan on December 15, 2016, the Navy stated that since the last full FSA was conducted in 2012, and updated in 2014, the global security environment changed significantly, with our potential adversaries developing capabilities that challenge our traditional military strengths and erode our technological advantage. Within this new security environment, defense planning guidance directed that the capacity and capability of the Joint Force must be sufficient to defeat one adversary while denying the objectives of a second adversary.
There it is in black and white, these are the reasons for the RFI which actually started in 2014, to develop a follow-on ship to the LCS. The Navy has three options: A modified design of the current LCS; Existing Ship designs or a new ship design. Here is what the RFI is seeking; a mature design that can be adapted to couple with combat and mechanical systems already in wide use in the U.S. Navy and can fully integrate with a carrier strike group. Among the capabilities the U.S. Navy wanted in its FFG(X) was the ability hunt submarines, kill ships over the horizon and operate independently in high-end threat environments, which would mean a robust counter-missile capability. The U.S. Navy is looking to buy 20 FFG(X) ships.
Is it better, worse or just more expensive? Unknown because there have been no answers from contractors on the RFI and no review of those answers. My opinion is that a current design, if reexamined might be able to be sufficient, but that is an unknown quantity until we know precisely the kinds of weapons and electronics that might be necessary as a whole. The jury is still out.
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on Aug 4, 2017 19:12:28 GMT -6
There it is in black and white, these are the reasons for the RFI which actually started in 2014, to develop a follow-on ship to the LCS. The Navy has three options: A modified design of the current LCS; Existing Ship designs or a new ship design. Here is what the RFI is seeking; a mature design that can be adapted to couple with combat and mechanical systems already in wide use in the U.S. Navy and can fully integrate with a carrier strike group. Among the capabilities the U.S. Navy wanted in its FFG(X) was the ability hunt submarines, kill ships over the horizon and operate independently in high-end threat environments, which would mean a robust counter-missile capability. The U.S. Navy is looking to buy 20 FFG(X) ships. That sounds a lot like a Destroyer, just with an ASW instead of AA/missile defense focus
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Aug 4, 2017 19:19:54 GMT -6
There it is in black and white, these are the reasons for the RFI which actually started in 2014, to develop a follow-on ship to the LCS. The Navy has three options: A modified design of the current LCS; Existing Ship designs or a new ship design. Here is what the RFI is seeking; a mature design that can be adapted to couple with combat and mechanical systems already in wide use in the U.S. Navy and can fully integrate with a carrier strike group. Among the capabilities the U.S. Navy wanted in its FFG(X) was the ability hunt submarines, kill ships over the horizon and operate independently in high-end threat environments, which would mean a robust counter-missile capability. The U.S. Navy is looking to buy 20 FFG(X) ships. That sounds a lot like a Destroyer, just with an ASW instead of AA/missile defense focus Yes, it does and it might be that it ends up being a destroyer with the FFG designation. We just don't know, despite all the hoopla on the web. We just don't know and neither does the Navy..... or at least they aren't going to let us for a few years. I've been through some of this with the F-18A and CASS.
|
|
|
Post by steel selachian on Aug 4, 2017 22:35:13 GMT -6
There it is in black and white, these are the reasons for the RFI which actually started in 2014, to develop a follow-on ship to the LCS. The Navy has three options: A modified design of the current LCS; Existing Ship designs or a new ship design. Here is what the RFI is seeking; a mature design that can be adapted to couple with combat and mechanical systems already in wide use in the U.S. Navy and can fully integrate with a carrier strike group. Among the capabilities the U.S. Navy wanted in its FFG(X) was the ability hunt submarines, kill ships over the horizon and operate independently in high-end threat environments, which would mean a robust counter-missile capability. The U.S. Navy is looking to buy 20 FFG(X) ships. That sounds a lot like a Destroyer, just with an ASW instead of AA/missile defense focus Again, the problem I have with that mission description is that it is no different than a DDG-51. If you've determined that's the threat level you need to meet, why spend the money to develop a new hull that *might* have significantly lower building, manning, and running costs but is maybe 1/4 as capable against the listed threats? Finding a "mature" design might be problematic; the USCG's Legend-class National Security Cutters are an oft-mentioned option but they've had their own teething problems including structural cracking, and while designed to about 90% of military spec those ships are still only rated at Level I suvivability (which in some areas may actually be less than LCS). While it has some military-grade sensor and defensive systems, the USCG version costs around $700 million without air-defense radar, missiles, torpedoes, a combat system, ASW sonar, and all the other little bells and whistles we would expect from a frigate. It's conceivable that a fully militarized version would cost north of a billion per copy. LCS derivatives have also been mentioned, but that would require redesigning the hulls and the program's critics seem to think the LCS "stink" has to be completely expunged from the Navy. After that what you have left are foreign designs, which may be unproven, too expensive, or unsuited to the Navy's requirements. I generally saw LCS as the naval equivalent of a Humvee or maybe even the Stryker - it's a patrol and utility vehicle, not a frontline combatant. I can slap added armor and weapons on them if the mission requires, but even then I am not going to use them as a stand-in for a Bradley or an Abrams against enemy armor or anti-tank weapons. The main problem with the LCS program seems to be the inability to understand that the platform was not meant to, and should not be, a stand-in for a DDG against an opponent brandishing a lot of strike aircraft and/or antiship weaponry. That is what we built the DDGs for; if we need more of those we can build more. I get the feeling some of the LCS critics would have lambasted the WWII destroyer escorts for not carrying weaponry capable of threatening a battleship or being unable to keep fighting after an 18-inch shell or Long Lance torpedo hit. Not everything in the fleet needs to be a self-sufficient, do-everything Kill-O-Mat, especially when the idea is to build enough of them to free up heavier combatants for other missions. If we really need a pocket DDG for some reason, conveniently enough we have plenty of allies who own and operate such vessels.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Aug 5, 2017 8:34:57 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by steel selachian on Aug 5, 2017 21:47:10 GMT -6
The issue with using the DDG-51 or DDG-1000 hulls is that those are larger ships (and in the case of DDG-1000, extremely expensive at around $3 billion per copy and carrying their own batch of headaches). The whole idea behind FFG(X) seems to be to find that sweet spot where the vessel is capable of operating independently in a high-threat environment but is significantly cheaper to build and operate than a DDG. Depending on how one defines "operating independently" and "high-threat environment," that may be difficult. The only thing along the lines of using an existing DDG hull I can possibly think of would be the cut-down version of the DDG-51 that Gibbs & Cox offered to the Australians for their SEA 4000 Air Warfare Destroyer program. That proposal lost to Navantia's F100 design because it was a) a "paper" ship versus an in-service design and b) larger and more expensive. For FFG(X) it would probably be an expensive overmatch to the requirement. The piece I linked to earlier lists the potential pitfalls of reactivating the FFG-7s; those hulls were pretty stripped down when we retired them, they were reportedly mechanically worn out, and they would require significant updates to the weapons, electronics, and electrical systems.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Aug 5, 2017 22:33:18 GMT -6
There are no simple answers to the problems. The geostrategic situation has changed and the US Navy is now depleted. The LCS was designed for a particular mission and its not capable of providing much more than that. Frankly, our ships are worn out, and so are the men and women. The DDG-51 and 1000 are expensive and full of problems but we may have to use them for the new ship and its mission. Either that or we have to take the LCS and expand its size and add more weapons and sensors to increase its capability. This will also increase cost and Congress may not want to go in that direction.
What is the real answer? Quick trying to make the world safe for democracy. Let South Korea, Japan, Australia, Taiwan and all of Europe, Saudi Arabia etc. protect themselves. We can join them in a joint exercises but they have to lead in their particular geographic area. We cannot support 600 ship fleets. Building ships and aircraft is an expensive proposition, there is no doubt about that, and none of these think tanks and websites have the real answer. There are, as I've said, no simple answers. We either A) Use larger existing hulls and expensive ones B) Bring out of mothballs worn out Oliver Hazard Perry class ships, refurbish them and keep them in service until we can develop requirements, specifications and test a new ship. C) Upgrade the LCS to perform more missions like ASW, AAW and surface warfare. D) Forget the whole issue and hope we can keep going the way things are and the rest of the world will pull its head out of its butt and take care of itself. Either of these alternatives, is going to be expensive. The alternative to buy from abroad is not a viable option for the Navy.
Anyway we do this, it is going to be very expensive and take time.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Aug 7, 2017 8:24:16 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on Aug 7, 2017 11:02:09 GMT -6
seems like they want a cheaper destroyer that does what a destroyer does
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Aug 7, 2017 11:20:36 GMT -6
seems like they want a cheaper destroyer that does what a destroyer does That's the impression that I have gotten, a smaller ship with destroyer capability. Who knows?
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on Aug 7, 2017 12:27:59 GMT -6
seems like they want a cheaper destroyer that does what a destroyer does That's the impression that I have gotten, a smaller ship with destroyer capability. Who knows? from personal experience in video games, you can have it all, but it tends to ballon cost/displacement considerably
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Aug 7, 2017 13:03:20 GMT -6
That's the impression that I have gotten, a smaller ship with destroyer capability. Who knows? from personal experience in video games, you can have it all, but it tends to ballon cost/displacement considerably From my experience with Naval fighters, packing ten pounds of electronics into 5 pound box generally doesn't work out. This is what started with the F-18A. The F-4 could carry ordnance and did a good job once we brought out the F-4J/S version with track while scan and look down/ shoot down capability. But it wasn't a good dogfighter until we improved the missiles and the air combat maneuvering skills of the pilots using Top Gun. We've eliminated the day and all weather bombers now and the F-18C/D and the F-18E/F have to do all the work. We are probably going to do the same thing with the F-35. This is the kind of pattern that I see in the development of support ships like the destroyers and fast frigates. It wasn't the way they were originally designed to operate. But hopefully networking and smaller/lighter electronics along with weapons will allow them to accomplish their purpose. I hope they come to their senses quickly before making the same mistake on this new concept as they did with the LCS.
|
|
|
Post by steel selachian on Aug 7, 2017 20:48:44 GMT -6
Somehow this reminds me of a retort delivered by Lando Calrissian in one of the old Star Wars novels when confronted with a military officer insisting he didn't need any help with a situation - I forget the exact wording, but it boiled down to "when a military officer tells me he has every contingency covered, that means 'We have big guns, we have little guns, we have bombs of all sizes.'" That to me sums up the proposed FFG(X) - the Navy wants a ship that can perform every role a DDG-51 does, including having Aegis, just in a marked-down and downsized package. Never mind that we have 67 DDG-51s built, 9 on order, and I believe another 19 planned with initial design studies being done for a 2030s replacement that will hopefully leverage some of the technology investments made in the DDG-1000 and other ships (electric drive, lasers, railguns, sensors, etc).
Actually, now that I think of it one really effective way to boost fleet numbers might be a life extension program on the older Flight I Burkes to maybe keep them going another decade into the 2030s.
Say what you want about LCS; it was made to fill gaps we currently have - mine warfare, ASW, Special Forces support, chasing lightly-armed FACs such as those employed by pirates and irregular forces - and do so for about a quarter the price of the DDG-51s we currently have patrolling off the Horn of Africa and the Arabian peninsula. If you're in an area that's too dangerous for those ships to operate unsupported, you'll probably want the air defense capabilities of a DDG-51 anyway.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Aug 8, 2017 12:48:25 GMT -6
Somehow this reminds me of a retort delivered by Lando Calrissian in one of the old Star Wars novels when confronted with a military officer insisting he didn't need any help with a situation - I forget the exact wording, but it boiled down to "when a military officer tells me he has every contingency covered, that means 'We have big guns, we have little guns, we have bombs of all sizes.'" That to me sums up the proposed FFG(X) - the Navy wants a ship that can perform every role a DDG-51 does, including having Aegis, just in a marked-down and downsized package. Never mind that we have 67 DDG-51s built, 9 on order, and I believe another 19 planned with initial design studies being done for a 2030s replacement that will hopefully leverage some of the technology investments made in the DDG-1000 and other ships (electric drive, lasers, railguns, sensors, etc). Actually, now that I think of it one really effective way to boost fleet numbers might be a life extension program on the older Flight I Burkes to maybe keep them going another decade into the 2030s. Say what you want about LCS; it was made to fill gaps we currently have - mine warfare, ASW, Special Forces support, chasing lightly-armed FACs such as those employed by pirates and irregular forces - and do so for about a quarter the price of the DDG-51s we currently have patrolling off the Horn of Africa and the Arabian peninsula. If you're in an area that's too dangerous for those ships to operate unsupported, you'll probably want the air defense capabilities of a DDG-51 anyway. The bottom line on this dilemma is simply that the Navy does have various methods of increasing its fleet. It can use the Oliver Hazard Perry's for a limited time, SLEP the Burke's and build more with newer technology and continue the LCS program by correcting the issues and making it a mature design. Here is an interesting short piece - Are Americas Overseas Security Commitments ....pdf (1.09 MB)
|
|
|
Post by steel selachian on Sept 12, 2017 16:54:36 GMT -6
|
|