Our Navy's Stupid Mistakes

Our Navy's Stupid Mistakes


I'll just start out with two (2), the Zumwalt, and the Littoral Combat Ships


ZUMWALT
Don't know how many have been following this project, but it has gotten so over bloated that the production run has now been downgraded to just 3 ships, at a cost of X each. And exactly what is the mission of these ships now,..just a hi-tech destroyer??

I wrote to a friend recently, “I really thought it was a GREAT idea to station a missile launching ship somewhat nearby the coast of a rogue nation and catch any missiles launched from the nation against another, catch those missiles on their way up,....much easier than trying to catch them head on.

More specifically in the case of N Korea, wouldn't it be much more effective deployment tactically (proven), and much more cost effective method to station one, two, or three such ships on a rotating deployment in the Sea of Japan to simply fire a few missiles right up the tail pipes of anything N Korea could launch??


Arsenal Ship instead of Zumwalt ( I seem to recall that this was the original idea that foster the Zumwalt design. It got hijacked !!)

(actually this is NOT the original image of the original idea, but rather an updated image of the older idea)



Arsenal Ships for Ballistic Missile Defense



It is welcome news the US Military won’t be placing vulnerable and intimidating anti-ballistic missile sites right up against the Russian border in Eastern Europe, but I fear the plan to place them on US Navy ships will do this service more harm than good. Already completely obsessed with land threats, the USN will now have less concern for the essential role of defending the sealanes. With a shrinking fleet and declining funds, they can hardly protect the fleet they have, let alone fight new space wars.

The Navy seems to consider the oceans as their own personal domain and it can afford to dispose of essential anti-submarine escorts and coastal warships, while building large Aegis battleships which are currently doing the work once performed by cheaper, less capable, but vital small warships. Already the cruisers and destroyers are duplicating the aircraft carrier’s land attack role, with 400 mile range cruise missiles and now are shouldered with yet another burden of defending our allies from rogue Iranian or North Korean rockets. Already we see the infighting of whether even more $2 billion new Burke destroyers will be needed, on top of the 60+ already in service or ordered. Colin Clark at DoD Buzz wonders about this conundrum:

One of the most difficult issues is, do we have enough Aegis cruisers to execute the mission. Gates wants two to three cruisers in the Mediterranean and North Sea on a regular basis. That comes on top of the Pacific mission. And I hear that the Aegis fleet is already operating at 160 percent of its readiness rate, mostly to cope with the North Korean threat. One source with detailed knowledge of European missile defense efforts said the new mission will require at least one and perhaps more Aegis class ships to do the job.

As an alternative to our over-worked missile battleships in the role of ABM defense, we would suggest reviving the 1990s proposal for an Arsenal Ship. You may recall this revolutionary hull design as an attempt to replace the Iowa class dreadnoughts with a low cost “missile barge”, until canceled in favor of a more traditional and more costly Zumwalt class destroyer. The arsenal ship was a great idea which never saw the light of day, but also refused to die out completely.

The modern concept would be to use a low-cost ship hull, preferably of mercantile specifications (T-AKE?) equipped with vertical launchers (VLS) for missiles. Keeping the hull cost low would mean the SM-3 missiles would be worth more than the ship, as it should be. Other benefits would be extremely low manning, which could allow for crew swapping, keeping the ship on station for as long as possible.

The arsenal ship would carry nothing but a basic navigation radar, but would depend on other Aegis vessels in service for targeting. This would not be stretch for the service, since common practice already is to use 2 vessels for this role, one for tracking the other as the shooter. In this case, instead of less than 100 Standard missiles on average with the 2 Burkes, there would be up to 1000 (just potentially though not very practical) on the arsenal ship alone! It may also be possible to use aircraft or satellites for targeting purposes, or even a low cost Aegis mothership proposed earlier on this site.

The cost of the hull would be run between $300-$500 million. The Standard SM-3 is priced at $10 million each with the older Block IV Standard at $1/2 million each, so depending on how many you can afford would be the ultimate cost of the vessel. When you think about the real cost, the relief to our sailors and stretched thin fleet for not adding yet another burden on them, the arsenal ship would be Priceless!

(BTW have you seen the final pricing on the Zumwalts I suspect we will build only one or two at that price,....stupid military spending)

Semi Submersible Arsenal Ship

Brian responded:
That task could be accomplished with two arsenal ships that were rotating duty,...one off, one on duty at any one time. The off duty one could be close at hand in Japan.

I say semi-submerssible,.... Imagine such a vessel that was not totally a submarine, but rather floated so low in the water that just the 'coning tower' stuck out above the water surface,....decks awash most of the time. It would really present a minimal 'signature' to detection. It could be diesel-electric powered and loiter for days on end.

It doesn't need great speed, or even great maneuverability. And it doesn't need a big crew. (and perhaps it could be disguised as an iceberg....ha...ha)

It could be armed with multiple non-nuclear missiles designed specifically to run up the tailpipes of any ICBM launched in that part of the world. It could likely have an effectiveness of 100% in that mode.

Think of how much more effective, and far less expensive that would be compared to that giant anti-missile system 'shield' they built up in Alaska

Cost figures I've seen,
$22.5 billion program cost (FY15);

$4.24B per unit (excl R&D) as of 2016;

The Navy's Zumwalt-Class 'Stealth' Destroyer Has One Big Problem
What is it really good for?

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/b...s-stealth-destroyer-has-one-big-problem-41807

That just sounds like so much bull_it they put out to cover their butts,... been done a number of times in the past, but now its getting REAL COSTLY.

I am quite amazed they didn't get the new catapult launch systems working on the new carrier, and still no great railgun either. How long have they been working on these 2 items??...just unbelievable.

They need are real director that would hold there feet to the FIRE !!

You've got a great number of young computer geeks working on weapon systems that ONLY work when their computers and software are working. One BIG electromagnetic weapon set off nearby would render most of these new weapons useless.

I disagree here, I don't think the academy cadets/instructors etc have anything to do with this weapons development situation. I lived right across the water from the Academy for years, and previously I was involved with nuclear submarines for something like 7 years.

This weapons development takes place within the military industrial complex that has a HUGE population surrounding Wash DC, the Pentagon, the many other defense contractors around the country. Plus you have the very significant influence from retiring congressmen, military personnel, and other government officials that get plush jobs with defense contractors for becoming lobbyist back to congress for defense spending. Some of those pentagon military types should NOT even be in on the processes. They are bias, and often without the knowledge to direct these weapons programs,..but they are making BIG bucks to convince congress etc that the country needs these weapons,..ever increasing in size and budget.

Then there is one particular party that it ever reminding the citizens of this country that we can't get along without this multiple list of weapons. Then another item that grips me in particular is that we need to built a certain surplus of some of these weapons so the per-item price is less. And what do we do to get these numbers up,...sell some of them off to foreign countries,...some of those countries are not necessarily our long term friends, and some of them allow tech to leak out to our enemies. Then we are convinced that we need to build new ones with more advanced technology,....a somewhat viscous circle something like the 'revolving door' of situation in the defense contracting business.

Was it retiring president Eisenhower that warned us of the growing military-industrial complex that would gain a life of its own. IT HAS, and it lacks a lot of Checks and Balances. We have been letting it police itself.

You are aware that we have a whole extra aircraft carrier (and huge support group of required ships) that most experts agreed that we did NOT need.

Littoral Combat Ships

Is this a cover your butt video typical of the defense industry when they make a mistake.
The True Reason Why the Littoral Combat Ship Is Terrible


How about a 10 minute long video that doesn't give you much information at all.
They didn't even bother to explain the differences (radical) between the two types of ships. What a useless video.

The two different types of ships,..
https://www.naval-technology.com/projects/littoral/

( I was a fan of the Trimaran design)

Well done presentation !

....excerpted from one of those links provided by Mr Ward above,...