|
Post by steel selachian on Dec 23, 2017 21:47:12 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jan 22, 2018 18:44:38 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by steel selachian on Jan 22, 2018 19:47:05 GMT -6
To my understanding, the USN doesn't have any warships with "icebreaker bows;" the only icebreakers we have are USCG vessels.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jan 22, 2018 20:18:08 GMT -6
To my understanding, the USN doesn't have any warships with "icebreaker bows;" the only icebreakers we have are USCG vessels. Maybe we ought to change that, if "The Day After Tomorrow" is correct. You never know.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jan 22, 2018 20:30:25 GMT -6
Wow! They had to return the ship to Blohm und Voss. Ich! Electronics will get you every time. Let's go back to the old ways, Sail along side your enemy and bang away.
|
|
|
Post by steel selachian on Jan 22, 2018 21:23:54 GMT -6
Wow! They had to return the ship to Blohm und Voss. Ich! Electronics will get you every time. Let's go back to the old ways, Sail along side your enemy and bang away. It appears the main issue was with trying to automate many of the ship's functions, although in general the design appears to be something of a lemon - overweight, overspecialized, and no room for upgrades. It's basically a 7,000-ton patrol boat designed to stay at sea for up to two years at a stretch, which is more than a bit ludicrous.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jan 22, 2018 21:32:40 GMT -6
Wow! They had to return the ship to Blohm und Voss. Ich! Electronics will get you every time. Let's go back to the old ways, Sail along side your enemy and bang away. It appears the main issue was with trying to automate many of the ship's functions, although in general the design appears to be something of a lemon - overweight, overspecialized, and no room for upgrades. It's basically a 7,000-ton patrol boat designed to stay at sea for up to two years at a stretch, which is more than a bit ludicrous. Two years at sea..... in the Baltic and North Sea? What is this, a pleasure cruise. Let's see, we could visit Denmark, Southern England, Holland, Belgium, the Orkney's, Scapa Flow would be nice. We could pass through the Skagerrak and sail by Jutland, the area of the High Seas Fleet's last great battle? St. Petersburg would be nice. Nice patrol boat and cruise ship. Expense though.
|
|
|
Post by steel selachian on Jan 22, 2018 23:22:59 GMT -6
It appears the main issue was with trying to automate many of the ship's functions, although in general the design appears to be something of a lemon - overweight, overspecialized, and no room for upgrades. It's basically a 7,000-ton patrol boat designed to stay at sea for up to two years at a stretch, which is more than a bit ludicrous. Two years at sea..... in the Baltic and North Sea? What is this, a pleasure cruise. Let's see, we could visit Denmark, Southern England, Holland, Belgium, the Orkney's, Scapa Flow would be nice. We could pass through the Skagerrak and sail by Jutland, the area of the High Seas Fleet's last great battle? St. Petersburg would be nice. Nice patrol boat and cruise ship. Expense though. I believe the intent was to use this vessel for expeditionary missions in low-threat environments - park it off Somalia or North Africa for two years to hunt pirates and terrorists, that sort of thing. The plan was to have eight crews for the four hulls, put a ship on forward patrol for two years, and every four months it pulls into a convenient port to swap crews. It's definitely not meant for Baltic or North Sea operations; with just two 21-round RAM launchers for air defense it clearly was not meant to operate against a peer-state foe such as Russia.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jan 22, 2018 23:59:31 GMT -6
Two years at sea..... in the Baltic and North Sea? What is this, a pleasure cruise. Let's see, we could visit Denmark, Southern England, Holland, Belgium, the Orkney's, Scapa Flow would be nice. We could pass through the Skagerrak and sail by Jutland, the area of the High Seas Fleet's last great battle? St. Petersburg would be nice. Nice patrol boat and cruise ship. Expense though. I believe the intent was to use this vessel for expeditionary missions in low-threat environments - park it off Somalia or North Africa for two years to hunt pirates and terrorists, that sort of thing. The plan was to have eight crews for the four hulls, put a ship on forward patrol for two years, and every four months it pulls into a convenient port to swap crews. It's definitely not meant for Baltic or North Sea operations; with just two 21-round RAM launchers for air defense it clearly was not meant to operate against a peer-state foe such as Russia. I sort of gathered that, it was never designed for naval combat, just pirate hunting. Hopefully the pirates don't get more sophisticated weapons or this ship will be a good target. You have to anticipate that a weapon might have to be used in locations and situations the specifications and original intent did not allow for. Sort of reminds one of the intent to use expensive battle cruisers to hunt raiders, a big waste of money.
|
|
|
Post by steel selachian on Feb 18, 2018 8:48:35 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Feb 18, 2018 11:51:08 GMT -6
I firmly believe that this desire for Littoral Combat Ships and new FFG(X) is derived from the realization that Blue Water wars like the War in the Pacific were aberrational rarities. Most naval combat and actions throughout history occurred in littoral zones and enclosed seas like the North Sea, Mediterranean, English Channel, Baltic, South China Sea, Yellow Sea etc. The US Navy must be prepared for this and 101,000 ton carriers are nice but not useable in those regions without protect. The Navy need to develop smaller carriers, with Littoral Combat ships, FFG(X) and develop more drones along with STOVAL aircraft. I would recommend, if you haven't read it, "Naval Strategy and Operations in Narrow Seas " by Milan N. Vego. It explains this perfectly and I also believe that I have downloaded documents from DTIC concerning Littoral Combat and Narrow Seas. What is interesting is that we think of the War in the Pacific as being the big blue water conflict, yet much of the fighting took place in narrow waters around the Dutch East Indies, New Guinea and the Coral Sea, and of course, the Solomon Islands. We shouldn't focus on island hopping or the Battle of Midway, they were not normal. Many people need to go back to naval history and understand this whole concept. Thanks for providing these links and I am reading them more than once.
|
|
|
Post by atlanticghost on Nov 1, 2018 3:38:40 GMT -6
So the Canadian Navy may, or may not, have decided what new frigates to buy.I distinctly recall that a proven design, with hulls in the water, was supposed to be a requirement to be considered for this competition. I guess BAe and Lockheed offer generous bribes. Of course this program will turn into a fiasco, because Canadian military procurement almost always does. To my knowledge, no one has articulated a good reason for us to even buy these things. The RCN's main areas of interest seem to be enforcing sanctions against countries on the other side of the planet and joining the escort of USN battlegroups. Both seem like excellent ways to get involved in fights where we have no dog.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Oct 11, 2020 7:40:40 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by vonfriedman on Oct 22, 2020 5:11:05 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Nov 8, 2020 8:24:23 GMT -6
|
|