Introducing the USS Zumwalt, the Stealth Destroyer

reply to post by C0bzz


The F-14 and F-18 are very similar. The new Advanced Super Hornet finally gets real legs, but to do it they had to add two CFTs, improved engines, and an internal carriage weapons pod. And even then to get real range, the weapons loadout sucks. With 2 JSOWs they can stretch out to 810+ nm. Special mission, self escort, with 6 SDBs, 2 AIM-9X, IRST, and 2 AIM-120 (in the weapons pod) is around 650 nm. With 2 MK-84s and 2 AIM-120s, or 4 JSOWs they reach 730 nm. All but the SDB loadout also requires a centerline fuel tank.

On paper the Super Hornet looks good. Try telling that to the pilots who have been saying all along that they still don't have the legs to do what they want.

Originally posted by C0bzz
reply to post by Zaphod58

 

The combat radius of a SH varies depending on loadout. The figure you mentioned was 4x AIM-120, 2x AIM-9, 1x external fuel tank, combat radius is 229 nm with 2.3 hour loiter..

The E/F's , according to FAS, do around 400 NM fleet defense intercept missions or fleet defense (CAP) missions at 150 NM with around 2 hour loiter time (3 external tanks,6 AAM's).

The range of the F-14 was mostly likely inferior to that of the Super Hornet, given the F-14 only carried 2,650 lb more fuel, despite being almost 12,000 lb heavier with less capability to carry external fuel tanks. The fuel fraction of the F-14 is/was abysmal.

Depending on versions it had about a 100 NM advantage for the same type of loadout but given the superiority of it's AAM's/AWG-9 combination there was no favorable comparison to be made between the original Tomcat/Hornet versions...

Super Hornet:

4x AIM-120, 2x AIM-9, 3x external fuel tank, combat radius is 805 nm.

That might be a combat range but without refueling at that range it's ditching.

www.fas.org...

My opinion: The F-14 is romanticized, therefore its abilities are massively over exaggerated.

edit on 31/8/13 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)

I agree that the F-14 is/was romanticized but not that it's abilities are greatly exaggerated. The fact is that the F-18 E/F is as far as i know not generally superior in flight characteristics to the F-14's of the late 70's and 80's; the contribution to task-force defense that US carrier wings can offer is comparatively much smaller than it was some decades ago. That the Aegis Cruisers and Destroyers have largely made up the deficit in terms of defense does not change the fact that in the interceptor role the F-18 Is a poor replacement for the F-14.

I should not even mention that the aircraft the US navy is likely to face are now much superior to what the F-14's would have been up against in their days. IMO the situation may continue to degrade with the introduction of the navalized F-35's later in the decade.

Stellar

reply to post by StellarX


In any conflict with modern military technology, all surface ships are toast.

Even with 30 year old technology, Falklands 1982, just a small amount of air power and submarine power was devastating to surface ships. And that was a 3rd rate military against a 2nd one fighting far from home.

reply to post by mbkennel


Devastating? Was I watching a different fight?

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by mbkennel

 

Devastating? Was I watching a different fight?

No, both UK and Argentinian air power and submarines were successful. Argentina's very wimpy airforce sank 6 ships. UK's moderate airforce & sub exerted total defeat on the A's navy (sinking and then keeping them bound to port). UK was obviously much better at ground warfare.

Now, missile seekers are even better as are attack subs. Surface ships are just as big and as fast as they were.

People's notion of surface warfare is conditioned by WW2 films, where subs/air/surface were balanced.

reply to post by mbkennel


I only see five British sank, but considering the size of the force, five or six is far from devastating.

Missile seekers have improved, but defenses haven't been resting on their laurels either. Defenses now are light years beyond what the crew of those ships could have imagined.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by mbkennel

 

I only see five British sank, but considering the size of the force, five or six is far from devastating.

Given the relative strengths it is a large loss from a pretty terrible opponent. Expensive ships sunk from a small number of aircraft?

Missile seekers have improved, but defenses haven't been resting on their laurels either. Defenses now are light years beyond what the crew of those ships could have imagined.

True, but what's the point? You can stay out of range and pick off a few incoming missiles that make it through but you can't exert significant offensive capability either. Make expensive ships, expensive systems to save them from cheap weapons which can deter them from their mission easily.

A submarine still has much much better survivability and ability to exert power at range. I think surface ships are fine for uncontested logistics, but many surface warships are like dirigibles, "airships". Airforces aren't using them any more for a reason.

A non-ballistic missile boat, including good OAM (ocean-air antiaircraft missiles) would be serious.

With all the talk of the Zumwalt, why is any of it permanently above water? What about a shallow-diving (50 feet?) large missile carrier with similar air defenses (float up a pod with anti-air missiles?). The vulnerability to opposing aircraft and missiles has been reduced tremendously, while the capability of your armament is reduced only a little.

Unanchor yourself from assumptions. Other than the carriers for aircraft (which are useful if they have sufficient range to keep the carrier far away) why are there things significantly above water? Inertia.

Soldiers don't walk upright in square formations like they did in the 18th century when facing against machine guns. 18th century ideas work fine against peasants with clubs.

reply to post by mbkennel


With the new defenses ships don't have to stay far out of range and just pick off the few that get through. They aren't going to be operating five miles from shore, but they don't have to be forced out to a few hundred miles or farther like they did at one point.

At one point someone has declared just about everything obsolete, usually only to have it come back and bite them in the ass at the worst possible moment.

reply to post by mbkennel


I think the converted Ohio SSBNs are kind of what you advocate, although a lot more capable due to what they were converted from. Each is practically undetectable and carries 154 TLAMs.

Would be nice to have a UK variant patrolling the south atlantic at all times :-)

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by mbkennel

 

With the new defenses ships don't have to stay far out of range and just pick off the few that get through. They aren't going to be operating five miles from shore, but they don't have to be forced out to a few hundred miles or farther like they did at one point.

Really, what's the risk level? OK, you're 40 miles from shore against a reasonably technological armed force. You might face 50 aircraft, 300 missiles every day. And then they have good diesel-electric subs running. Torpedoes now have at least 20 mile range, are 1-hit mission kill and have decent seekers.

What is the risk vs capability compared to putting the same money in a real missile attack submarine fleet (missile boats + speedy conventional attack boats) which wouldn't have to be shooting a bunch of its ammo at things shooting at it.

The question isn't whether surface ships are completely helpless (they are very vulnerable and require expensive defensive technology which may still not be enough), but what's the best way to get capability for the money.

At one point someone has declared just about everything obsolete, usually only to have it come back and bite them in the ass at the worst possible moment.

Battleships are still obsolete against B-2. Speaking of which, compare a B-2's job--it is like the missile boat and can exert power with high probability against targets far away.

Would you prefer a much higher RCS dirigible laden with very expensive anti-missile defensive missiles and guns?

reply to post by mbkennel


You have an Arleigh Burke class destroyer, which operates in a group and is capable of defending itself against almost every threat out there, but the first hull cost $1.1B for the hull, and around $780M for the weapons system, so around $1.8B (I believe the Flight II and IIA was cheaper as the technology and manufacturing had matured). The Flight III, if they go with it, would be around $2.3B (it gets away from Aegis and into AMDR).

On the other hand, you have the Ohio missile submarine that comes in upwards of $2B a hull. At one point it was projected that any replacement hull would be closer to $4B a hull. The Virginia SSN boats, using COTS (commercial off the shelf) components come in at $2.7B a hull. All for boats that are more limited in mission than the Burke class.

Hi MB,

The observation that should be made is that USN is a legacy fleet that was originally built with interdiction ( to support invasions of other countries ) and since they were in the post war era, for the same reason, not willing to give up aircraft carriers everything had to be designed around them. IF the USN's primary task were to change to a true defense of the US Atlantic and Pacific coasts the fleet could very well be changed in almost exactly the way you describe. Suffice to say the imperial fleet must look pretty much like it does now while the self defense fleet could look as you describe for say 10-20% of the current USN operational cost.

Either way Admiral Zumwalt did not like what was happening to the USN during his times and would no likely be even less happy about the state of affairs today. Read it and weep:

newwars.wordpress.com...

newwars.wordpress.com...

80 knot , 3000 tons SES frigates.... Now that is the sort of thing that could be revolutionary and probably why it didn't happen.


Either way Zumwalt and some others would have agreed with your assessment of the threat of cruise missiles in the 70's ( and perhaps now if he were alive to do so) and the fact that the US fleet is now smaller than at any point since the 30's ( down from almost 1000 ships in the 50's ) means that there is now fewer targets than ever before. Then again the Russian fleet isn't what i used to be and the Chinese have some time to go before posing the same kind of threat...

Stellar

Originally posted by justwokeup
I think the converted Ohio SSBNs are kind of what you advocate, although a lot more capable due to what they were converted from. Each is practically undetectable and carries 154 TLAMs.
Would be nice to have a UK variant patrolling the south atlantic at all times :-)

Good observation yes,

The converted Ohio's provide a very very dangerous and stealthy land attack platform that if ever outfitted with Tomahawks/harpoons so that they could be used like the Ex Soviet Oscar's they would have to potential of just wiping out entire naval groups... It's not that Tomahawks or Harpoons are comparable to Granit's but i will take the potential 150 Cruise missiles over the 24 granits most days of the week! Either way in a 'real' war just a few 200 kt cruise missiles and your surface task forces are probably gone so it's all very academic stuff anyways. Both the Russians and Americans retains the nuclear munitions that makes the whole notion of effective fleet defense a bit oxymoronic; if your ships need to cluster for mutual protection in the nuclear age you are probably in trouble already and this is just one of the reasons why a High- low ( as picket defenders will just have to be very expendable) mix is absolutely necessary.

Stellar

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by mbkennel

 

You have an Arleigh Burke class destroyer, which operates in a group and is capable of defending itself against almost every threat out there, but the first hull cost $1.1B for the hull, and around $780M for the weapons system, so around $1.8B (I believe the Flight II and IIA was cheaper as the technology and manufacturing had matured). The Flight III, if they go with it, would be around $2.3B (it gets away from Aegis and into AMDR).

On the other hand, you have the Ohio missile submarine that comes in upwards of $2B a hull. At one point it was projected that any replacement hull would be closer to $4B a hull. The Virginia SSN boats, using COTS (commercial off the shelf) components come in at $2.7B a hull. All for boats that are more limited in mission than the Burke class.

So, a sub designed around doing something completely different can do some percentage of the surface ship's mission at a higher cost, and with far less vulnerability. The surface ship can do 0% of a SSBN's primary mission with any significant capability. (Random thing I read on the intertubes: In Cold War simulations, most of the US surface fleet was lost to USSR in 60 minutes).

And in any case, comparing a non-nuclear to nuclear in cost isn't quite fair either.

What I'm saying is not necessarily more of the subs that we have now but a new class, generally submersible and hence far less vulnerable, designed to excel at most of the surface fleet's missions, and live much longer than the surface fleet.

Essentials:
a) missiles & radar (submersible new class)
b) torpedoes & sonar
c) aircraft. You can't land on water, so you still need a carrier kept a long way off.
d) fuel & food (logistics ship kept a long way off)

Today, long range deployable power comes from missiles, and aircraft. Everything else is their haulers.

Originally posted by StellarX
Suffice to say the imperial fleet must look pretty much like it does now while the self defense fleet could look as you describe for say 10-20% of the current USN operational cost.

Not just defense.

A mostly submersible platform could actually attack much more. You could easily get 30 miles offshore, not be seen by anybody, and hit many things 400 miles+ inland. You'd have high % mission success, high % coming back to spouse success, and most of your payload is devoted to non-defensive missiles and accomplishing the political mission (instead of spending ammo to be able to hang around a few blocks away from a rough neighborhood and look patriotic and heroicially doing damage control.) How easily could a surface fleet do that against defenses with aircraft, missiles. Not to mention a diesel-electric? Poorly.

Either way Zumwalt and some others would have agreed with your assessment of the threat of cruise missiles in the 70's ( and perhaps now if he were alive to do so) and the fact that the US fleet is now smaller than at any point since the 30's ( down from almost 1000 ships in the 50's ) means that there is now fewer targets than ever before. Then again the Russian fleet isn't what i used to be and the Chinese have some time to go before posing the same kind of threat...

Even that is WW1 thinking---the threat to my fleet is their fleet. That isn't it.

A small surface fleet with 90% attack submarines (torps + missiles) and ground/air missiles is a huge threat. All the naval exercises with allied countries subs----if they don't artificially handicap the attack subs---result in many open cans on the bottom. Ever hear of an unrestricted exercise when the surface group nails 4 subs on the dot and takes no losses? No. The other way around? 1 or 2 can do it.

reply to post by StellarX

The E/F's , according to FAS, do around 400 NM fleet defense intercept missions or fleet defense (CAP) missions at 150 NM with around 2 hour loiter time (3 external tanks,6 AAM's).

The FAS page does not have a 400 NM fleet defence mission. My source gives 2.9 hours loiter at 130 nm with 3 external tanks and 6 AAM's, which isn't too far off FAS. My source also gives 805 nm radius with that same payload without any loiter. Perhaps there are differences in how this range is calculated.

My point is that the range of the F/A-18 E/F is not inferior to that of the F-14. In all likelihood it is superior due to greater relative fuel carriage capability. Actually the whole Super Hornet has poor range thing was borne years ago, likely from internet sources giving the range of a clean Super Hornet then claiming that this figure is the maximum possible range. It tends to bug me a little. I agree that it is kinematically inferior to the F-14.

The USN seems to revolve around multirole strike fighters, so it doesn't seem like the USN cares about the loss of the F-14s capabilities.. Perhaps they feel the operational context that necessitated the F-14 doesn't exist anymore.

C0bzz
Actually the whole Super Hornet has poor range thing was borne years ago, likely from internet sources giving the range of a clean Super Hornet then claiming that this figure is the maximum possible range.

So you're saying that NONE of the pilots I talked to about the Super Hornet performance actually told me that it still had a range problem (albeit not as bad as the A-D)? It's just a made up internet thing and I'm misremembering? Because I sure as hell remember several of them telling me that they still didn't have the legs they wanted with the SH.

Originally posted by mbkennel
Not just defense.

A mostly submersible platform could actually attack much more. You could easily get 30 miles offshore, not be seen by anybody, and hit many things 400 miles+ inland.

I agree in that much of the aggressive work could also be done with craft that are readily submersible but as far as i know there is as yet no practical way to go without those huge sensor arrays that surface ships are deploying in both their own defense but also in the general data gathering role. This can to some extent done by orbital platforms or form constant patrols by long range awacs type platforms but i am not sure that it can give the same type of immediate coverage required for convoy protection and genera 'presence' scenarios. The fact is that much of sea power projection still comes down to seeing stuff and being seen by others. Since some sort of convoy system will always have to exist to resupply overseas bases, allies or invasion forces i am not sure that readily submersible platforms will be especially practical in this role. If the current navy is maintained and aircraft carriers are retired in their time i do agree that the convoy protection/land attack roles could probably be done with platforms that could better evade modern threats.

You'd have high % mission success, high % coming back to spouse success, and most of your payload is devoted to non-defensive missiles and accomplishing the political mission (instead of spending ammo to be able to hang around a few blocks away from a rough neighborhood and look patriotic and heroicially doing damage control.) How easily could a surface fleet do that against defenses with aircraft, missiles. Not to mention a diesel-electric? Poorly.

You will always need those defensive weaponry as you will either be contributing to the protection of ships of your own type or, more importantly, the endless convoys that will one day again be required. While a maritime power wants to keep open the sea lanes( not merely prevent invasion) and do what the USN has been doing for a hundred years i can imagine a different fleet composition doing the same but i will not say that the current one is incapable of it's primary role. I do however agree with your general sentiment and that if there were a naval force or alliance that could spend anything like the money the Pentagon spends on the Navy they could with Diesel electrics/ SSGN's and relatively cheape anti ship missile launcher platforms probably do quite disproportionate damage to the USN. That being said the US can not afford to 'lose' so you can not really afford to win for fear of the inevitable reprisals; the US armed forces have if anything shown itself to be quite vindictively destructive when prevented form their original missions.

Even that is WW1 thinking---the threat to my fleet is their fleet. That isn't it.

A small surface fleet with 90% attack submarines (torps + missiles) and ground/air missiles is a huge threat.

Such a fleet would be a threat to US naval power but could not in itself protect power against the US mainland and all it will do is to turn the US inward where it will quickly rediscover ( trough force of necessity) it's lost industrial power and in just a decade would assuredly be more dangerous than ever. It will never be enough to defeat the United States at sea without being able to destroy the mainland and it's widely dispersed industrial bases as well. Suffice to say only Russia has a nuclear arsenal even remotely capable of doing both things and i am not sure if i would put money on it. Also the USN has bases all over the show and is widely disperse? How would you deal with their several dozen advanced Hunter ( those ohio's are very potent killer subs in themselves) subs? Maybe you put a dent in the surface fleet but what then? The fleet is just too large to 'lose' a conventional war against anyone fast enough to not be able to learn and respond adequately in time; that is a advantage strength of numbers yields that is not always accorded the proper respect.

Continued

All the naval exercises with allied countries subs----if they don't artificially handicap the attack subs---result in many open cans on the bottom. Ever hear of an unrestricted exercise when the surface group nails 4 subs on the dot and takes no losses? No. The other way around? 1 or 2 can do it.

Yes, and i can give you the actual quotes ( since i have spent the time to find and list them) by admirals/captains form various navy's; you are preaching to the choir here. Again the difference is that the Soviet navy would have relied on their vast numbers of conventional and nuclear subs to force the US into a task forces or convoys which could then be systematically attacked by their guided anti ship missile form their very substantial SSGN's , intercontinental cruise missile carrying bomber aircraft as well as surface naval forces second only to the USN itself!

The Soviet Union had the potential ( sufficient platforms&technology) to smash the USN on the open Ocean while retaining both the Nuclear and conventional power to make US nuclear retaliation against the Soviet union a hard choice in itself. Until another alliance of nations or individual nation has such power no one dares move against the USN even if they could do vastly disproportionate damage.

So in closing i do not disagree with your basic assessment but with the relevance of having power that could not be exercised without dire consequence. Did the Chinese 'win' when they maintained the Yalu river line? Did the Vietnamese win when they exchanged millions of lives and a utterly devastated country for a fleeting chance at relative independence? Will the Afghans or Iraqi's have won if escalating violence results in the US forces voluntarily withdrawing to their fortified compounds for the next few decades?

Cheers,

Stellar

Originally posted by StellarX

You will always need those defensive weaponry as you will either be contributing to the protection of ships of your own type or, more importantly, the endless convoys that will one day again be required. While a maritime power wants to keep open the sea lanes( not merely prevent invasion) and do what the USN has been doing for a hundred years i can imagine a different fleet composition doing the same but i will not say that the current one is incapable of it's primary role.

Suppose Orange Country decided to "close" the sea lanes with some effective force, e.g. missiles and submarines. What response would there be to neutralize the threat?

a) attack Orange missile sites. Need missiles & long range aircraft to do it.
b) attack Orange subs. Subs are much better at this.
c) attack Orange naval ports. Again, subs, & aircraft.
d) attack Orange surface vessels. Again, subs & aircraft.

What role would a surface fleet play? A carrier at long distance for aircraft. What would non-carrier ships be good at doing that's better than a semi-submersible? Missiles? No, the dedicated missile submersible would be better and could get much closer without being sunk. Minesweeping when it's all over? But maybe not even that.

I do however agree with your general sentiment and that if there were a naval force or alliance that could spend anything like the money the Pentagon spends on the Navy they could with Diesel electrics/ SSGN's and relatively cheape anti ship missile launcher platforms probably do quite disproportionate damage to the USN.

Why build so many expensive targets?

That being said the US can not afford to 'lose' so you can not really afford to win for fear of the inevitable reprisals; the US armed forces have if anything shown itself to be quite vindictively destructive when prevented form their original missions.

All the better to prevent 3000 sailors on destroyers & cruisers from being drowned needlessly on the 1st day. There wont be a 9/11 type of frenzy for blood.

Such a fleet would be a threat to US naval power but could not in itself protect power against the US mainland.

Missile subs can threaten but probably would be hunted by US attack subs effectively. What is the surface fleet doing in this scenario? (I'm not against carriers, both fixed and helo, as the aircraft are powerful and useful).