US military improvements?

We are now in a place where ships cost more to construct and fit out than they do to run and upgrade over their operational lifetime. I am rather interested in the procurement side of defence spend and how it can help the economy, I wouldn't mind becoming a beancounter or procurement analysed.

How would you increase the capability for launching Tomahawks? Would you use the advanced gun system or something like the turrets on HMS Belfast? Yes US ships really have no need for torpedo tubes when you have missile launched torpedo's that do the same job.

Extending the ships hull by 10-15% would mean some design changes and things being moved around to balance the ship with it's new larger guns, this would increase costs but not by a stupid amount. Stealth and Speed are what cost a lot of money, I think speed is more important than stealth. This is why the Freedom and Independence corvettes are cost so much, they are very fast and super stealthy. Would you keep the Ticon's ability to house 2 medium helicopters?

20 Pocket Battleships with 120 launchers, awesome. The Iowa's would be great backed by the Pocket Battleships, able to attack, defend and take hits, doesn't get much better. The Chinese would crap themselves and the Russians wouldn't even leave port. I don't know where people come up with these stupid concepts, there is one doing the rounds in the UK right now called the Black Swan Sloop, people think a group of 4 of them could replace a frigate and be cheap to run. I think it's a load of rubbish like the LCS idea.

 

Actually, I seriously doubt that we are anywhere near a new piece of major combat equipment costs more to buy then it does to maintain. You have to realize, most of our equipment is designed to and lasts for 30+ years. That is a lot of cost in just the day to day maintenance and the like. Then add in the need in the future to replace or majorly upgrade a component and then you get costs higher then the original build cost over the lifespan of the equipment.

Well, for Tomahawks that would be easy, we already have the blueprints for building launching turrets. We placed 2 of these on each of the Iowa class battleships when we updated them in the 1980's.



Not very expensive, we already know how to do it, and it adds to the capabilities of the ship.

And torpedoes do have a purpose, but not on every surface ship. For Destroyers and Frigates they may be fine, but when you go up to Cruisers, they become rather pointless. Especially if the ship has adequate guns and missiles which would be of more use then torpedoes would be.

And if you really do need to fire off a torpedo from your ship for some reason, just use a missile launched torpedo, like the ASW missiles we have. You are putting resources, training and money into something that would likely never be used, and loosing flexability.

Remember, the size was an example, of course I would expect it to basically be a new ship, but most of the equipment could be repurposed from designs already in existence. Updating and modernizing a proven design is cheaper then designing everything from scratch.

And yes I would keep the helicopters, because those also fulfill multiple roles depending on the tactical situation. ASW, transporting troops or supplies, even medevac and inter-fleet transfers. The era of the "Captain's Barge" is gone, normally those missions are done by helicopter now.

Well, I would actually prefer to build new "Pocket Battleships", and leave the Iowas where they are now, as museums. They are getting a little long in the tooth to be used in any but the most extreme need. And I doubt we would need more then 10-15 of them. Enough for one per Carrier fleet, and another for each Amphibious fleet. The biggest advantage would be the ability to strike ground targets in all weather to support troops on the ground, something we totally lack now. Add that to a strike capability, and you get what a Cruiser was originally designed to do. And without the "Non-PC Name" of a "Battleship".

I think LCS has a place, but it is a limited place and should in no way replace our major surface combatants - just supplement them. LCS as a secondary Destroyer to help defend and support an Amphibious Fleet to me makes sense. But then it really needs to have some real guns, not 1 or 2 popguns like they have now. Replacing a ship like the Arleigh Burke for defending a Carrier to me though is just stupid. It has capabilities that are simply lost (stealth) when it is trying to defend a target like a carrier, which is the opposite of stealth.

And sorry, I see the USS Independence as pretty much a joke. A single surface attack missile system, with a range of 12 miles and a warhead of 13 pounds? 3 lightweight cannons (1 57mm, 2 30mm)? And that is it? What is that, some kind of a joke? I think we fought the Revolutionary War with ships more powerful then that. The USS Freedom is a bit better, with the addition of 21 short range SAM missiles (10km). But it is not much of an improvement.

Sorry, I think we should finish the 6 LCS ships in construction or in service, assign them to our Carrier forces, and let them operate as advance scouts. With such limited firepower I really see no other use for them.

 

Thank you.

 

I realize how long ships are normally in service for, but their cost is going up and crew numbers coming down. Say the USS Zumwalt is in service for 30 years and it costs $3 billion to construct and fit out, that means the operating costs would have to be $100 million a year every year for 30 years. How about the HMS Daring which cost £1.1 billion to build, over a 30 year service life it would have to cost 37 million a year ever year to keep her operational, the cost of older ships like the Type 42 or Type 23 is £25 million a year on average. So with the very costly ships they cost more to build than they do to run, other less costly ships like the new Type 26 frigate or Ticonderoga class will cost more to run than build.

I think you would need 18-20 new cruisers or pocket battle ships, 10-15 leaves little room for rotation. Stratfor's map of US ship movements show the US having 4 carriers and 4 amphibious assault ships operational at any one time. If you want to rotate you would need atleast 16, plus some maybe in refit or on there way back from operations, so I think 18-20.
The Independence class would be very good anti-piracy ships because of their speed, ability to use UCAV's, 2 helicopters and modular design, but there is no need for stealth. I think they are pointless aswell, nobody can really think they would be much use in a carrier group. I would like to see some purpose build anti-piracy corvettes, so frigates, destroyers and cruisers can get on with more dangerous work. Things like Black Swan or LCS are moving us away from the real capabilities that will be needed to fight wars in the future.

 

What "rotation"? You simply attack it to the fleet, like the other major assets like Amphib ships or carriers. If the main ship to be protected is in port, these ships are in port. As you stated, we only have on average 8-10 major surface groups out at sea at any one time anyways. So why would we need twice as many of these?

This is primarily how things are done already. The same major ships are attached to a Carrier or other ship to be protected, and tend to deploy with them for years without "rotation". The USS Antietam has been with Carrier Strike Group 3 (USS Carl Vinson) for a decade now. When the Vinson is at sea, the Antietam is at sea. When the Vinson is in port, the Antietam is in port.

 

I thought ships had a rotation every 3-6 months to change the crew. The rule of thumb for the Royal Navy is 1 operational and 1 in refit or training, so you need atleast 2 of everything. It's also not a bad idea to have some ships and crews spare incase you need them.

 

That is often the case with submarines, where they have 2 crews per ship so they can be at sea more. But this is not the case with most surface ships.

 

I guess while the UK has ships replacing other ships, the US has carrier groups replacing other carrier groups.

 

All of our ships pretty much work in various sized groups. They normally go out for 6-12 months at a time, then return for 6-12 months as the other group goes out. That way we always have one group out, and the next getting ready to go back out. And most of our ships have operated in these groups for many years.

The USS Whidbey Island, even though it is named after an island in Washington has been home ported in Virginia since it was built 20 years ago. And she constantly works the Med-African Horn area of operations. And all of the Expeditionary Strike Groups work in pretty much the same way. Several amphibious ships, a Frigate, Destroyer and Cruiser, all operating as a fleet (along with various other logistical ships that come and go as needed).

 

Great discussion on Navy stuff.

Do we need a couple more carrier divisions? It would seem so to me, even if they are 'expensive'.

I also think the U.S. should do more to build up the RN, if they're having budget problems; I would rather pay a little more in taxes than do without a strong U.S. Navy and Royal Navy. It would be grand if the corruption and pork could be rooted out, bringing the costs down, but that isn't going to happen until political bribery is made illegal in the U.S., and I don't think it's wise to wait for that to happen.

 

One of the first things I would do is allow our military to win wars.

 

The Nimitz class is very very costly run between $25-40 million a day is what I have heard, then the nuclear refueling and refit which costs atleast £2 billion and takes the carrier out of service for a couple of years. Then you need the infastructure to build the carrier, refuel and refit the carrier. This is why the UK didn't want nuclear powered carriers, instead we are increasing the number of replenishment ships we have from 6 to 9, so we will be able to keep the carrier and it's defending ships at sea for longer. The new reactors for the Ford are ment to be smaller, more powerful and much cheaper to run, the crew numbers needs will also come down.

The UK doesn't need US government handouts, we would like to leave Afganistan this year rather than 2014. You may want to help the UK, but your government doesn't care, the "special relationship" is a load of rubbish. I would like to see the UK stop doing what ever the US wants, be it going into Iraq and Afghanistan or releasing some of our oil reserves because your government asks us to. As it happens I agree with going into Afghanistan to kill Bin Laden but I don't agree with nation building, I also agree with going into Iraq to get rid of Saddam, but not both at the same time, the UK military and economy isn't capable of doing that when our politicians don't want to be their. Tony Blair one of the worst PM's we have ever had, nobody's worse than Lloyd Goerge but he's not far off. We can sort our own mess out and you have your own problems with debt and deficit's.

 

Would privatizing the U.S. military be a good thing?

 

No it's the worst idea I have ever heard.

 

No, we do not need any more "Carrier Divisions". The number we have is adequate for the needs of the country.

However, we need to (and are) starting to build new carriers, because they are going to be needed in the near future.

Most do not realize, but the USS Nimitz is 38 years old, and has a lifespan of 50 years. We have already lost the USS Enterprise after 50 years. And many of our other carriers are also coming close to that "retirement age".

The USS Dwight D. Eisenhower is 36 years old.
The USS Carl Vinson is 31 years old.

Now granted, they still have at least a decade left in their projected service life. But the older they get the more expensive they are to maintain, and for a ship of this scale the replacement needs a minimum of 6-8 years from ordering the ship to it's delivery to the Navy.