Go Navy!

Discuss life, the universe, and everything with other members of this site. Get to know your fellow polywell enthusiasts.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

ladajo
Posts: 6258
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:18 pm
Location: North East Coast

Re: Go Navy!

Post by ladajo »

An interesting note is that the Independence Class does not get painted.
The development of atomic power, though it could confer unimaginable blessings on mankind, is something that is dreaded by the owners of coal mines and oil wells. (Hazlitt)
What I want to do is to look up C. . . . I call him the Forgotten Man. (Sumner)

GIThruster
Posts: 4686
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm

Re: Go Navy!

Post by GIThruster »

No reason to. Aluminum is already oxidized. I wonder if they're using Musk's secret stir welding technique?
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

ladajo
Posts: 6258
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:18 pm
Location: North East Coast

Re: Go Navy!

Post by ladajo »

It was a conscious decision not to, against a lot of pressure to do so. It still comes up.
The outer skin of the ship is "washed" to promote a salt water resistant oxidation layer.
Other aluminum warship skins are painted.

As for the weld process, it is to milspec, you can look it up if you really want to.
The development of atomic power, though it could confer unimaginable blessings on mankind, is something that is dreaded by the owners of coal mines and oil wells. (Hazlitt)
What I want to do is to look up C. . . . I call him the Forgotten Man. (Sumner)

KitemanSA
Posts: 6179
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 3:05 pm
Location: OlyPen WA

Re: Go Navy!

Post by KitemanSA »

GIThruster wrote:
KitemanSA wrote:I just hope the pirates don't fight back. We might become a bit embarrassed.
If you're referring to the aluminum hull, I would just note to you, the captain of the ship knows what his ship can take, and I doubt given the option to put drones and helos on the target, as well as the 8 km range of the 57mm Bofors and Hellfire, there is very little reason to put the ship at risk. The Firescouts carry laser guided Hydra 70 rockets now, that makes them especially lethal, and the Seahawks can carry Hellfires as well, so anyone who isn't prepared to shoot a helo down is going to do exactly what they're told to do. Seems to me the real risk in anti-piracy is the crew aboard the Seahawks. If a pirate had an OBama gift provided Stinger, the helo would be at risk, but not the Independence.
A real slugger with a glass jaw?

GIThruster
Posts: 4686
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm

Re: Go Navy!

Post by GIThruster »

I suppose but compared to an Exocet, most ships have glass jaws. Point is, it operates primarily as a carrier for these other craft that do the confrontation, and if it needs to get involved, it has a gun with range far greater than any shoulder mounted weapon that would otherwise be a threat.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

paperburn1
Posts: 2484
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2009 5:53 am
Location: Third rock from the sun.

Re: Go Navy!

Post by paperburn1 »

I get the impression most people do not understand how "delicate" ships are above the water line. Those old WW2 movies make you think they were built like tanks.
(battleships excluded)
I am not a nuclear physicist, but play one on the internet.

GIThruster
Posts: 4686
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm

Re: Go Navy!

Post by GIThruster »

Report to congress on the new LCS:

http://news.usni.org/2014/08/12/documen ... t-congress

NBote page 28, the resurfacing of my earlier complaint and now made against the class itself, that they did not keep to the original core crew requirement "Potential O&S cost growth". The ship is supposed to have a core crew of 40 and up to 35 mission specialists with each package. the Lockmart ship is 20% above that and cannot carry more than 65 so it doesn't provide for the reduced core requirement, nor the extended based upon mission package needs. This is why I said it is a failure and should not have been purchased.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

ladajo
Posts: 6258
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:18 pm
Location: North East Coast

Re: Go Navy!

Post by ladajo »

From a previous post of mine:
Even Ron O'Rourke's latest is OBE (not to mention some points being based on historical "passed and openings".) It is really just a few more points added to the previous versions. He also can not include classified assessments or implications in his work given the scope and bounds of his mandate. I have spoken with him in the past on LCS, and he admits and claims a certain amount of self-imposed and structural limits in order to maintain "political neutrality".
Of course in my own opinion, the ability for his office to remain completely neutral is suspect at best.
I will offer that most publically raised concerns on LCS are based on old information and not up to date with current program activity or initiatives. Mccain is one of the worst for this. His critiques truly do live in the past. His latest LCS floor diatribe was like a MASH re-run in context. You can find the transcript if you poke around.

Beh. Again, like I said, I am way more familiar with LCS than I ever thought I would be or truly wanted to be. But, I will admit it has been a interesting journey that I suspect is not yet over.
You should also know that LCS 1 & 2 can berth and sustain just shy of 100 folks. Not counting installation of any required/desired berthing modules.

I will not go into any converstations I have had with Ron O'Rourke, but rest assured, that he and his staff in my opinion are feeding the bear at best. Most of what he has is outdated recycled given the nature of the mechanism they use to put out product. Feel free to review any previous iterations of his LCS product in particular and you will see what I am talking about.
The development of atomic power, though it could confer unimaginable blessings on mankind, is something that is dreaded by the owners of coal mines and oil wells. (Hazlitt)
What I want to do is to look up C. . . . I call him the Forgotten Man. (Sumner)

GIThruster
Posts: 4686
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm

Re: Go Navy!

Post by GIThruster »

After reading the congressional report i am more convinced than ever that this isa good way to go. Whether they should downselect to 1 LCS type or not I don't know. They decided to skip that back in 2009. Point is basically, if you don't need lots of large missiles for the mission, you don't need something larger than a corvette. I'm all in favor of more, smaller, faster ships. So long as these can perform all their missions, why build larger ships and pay more sailors?
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

ladajo
Posts: 6258
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:18 pm
Location: North East Coast

Re: Go Navy!

Post by ladajo »

You have hit upon the very heart of the concept. That and mission flexibility.
The biggest issue with mission flexibility is that some eager marketing minds went over the top early on and marketed the platforms as essentially "swap on the fly".
This has never been true, nor will it. The navy did itself a disservice with Congress and the public by letting this point get out of hand.
Technically, if all the bits are on the pier, and you have the support kit (cranes, etc), and you are swapping just hardware, you can do it pretty fast. It is the turn on and cert stuff, as well as re-manning and re-certing the ship for the new mission package that eats the calendar. Now, if stuff, people and swap support equipment is not on the pier, start exponentially expanding the time requirement for each bit you are waiting on...

All in all, it really is a good platform. We need something like it, maybe even a little smaller, as well as numerous hull frigate class platform.
We have tried to turn ourselves into an all high end navy, and discovered we can't afford it yet.
I think we should shoot for something like this, reflecting both costs and hull numbers:
1 CG for 2 DDG for 4 FFG for 8 COR for 16 PGM

Given the ability to mount high punch kit on small platforms (think Naval Strike Missile on a PGM or even smaller), the need to stock only high end units (CG/DDG) is not there. You really only need them for saturation attack air and missile defense roles. Some of the little guys are so small, you would be hard pressed to make a DTE OTH cycle complete on them. Especially if they are operating in clutter environments like hard up against dirt, etc.
The development of atomic power, though it could confer unimaginable blessings on mankind, is something that is dreaded by the owners of coal mines and oil wells. (Hazlitt)
What I want to do is to look up C. . . . I call him the Forgotten Man. (Sumner)

GIThruster
Posts: 4686
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm

Re: Go Navy!

Post by GIThruster »

Do you know why the Sea Fighter concept was not adopted? Seems like a natural extension of the LCS and I think the thing was even faster than the LCS. It also had the swappable mission packages.

And I would note that even if swapping isn't as quick as we'd like, it is better than building a second ship, and over time I'm sure we'll get better at it. It is operations that the Us does so well. We don't always have the best weapons, vehicles and ships, but our operations are so professional that they make others pitiful by comparison.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

ladajo
Posts: 6258
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:18 pm
Location: North East Coast

Re: Go Navy!

Post by ladajo »

Bob Work has a great piece on LCS evolution if you can find it.
In a nutshell, Seafighter evolved into LCS. LCS is kind of an overkill approach to Seafighter. One of the core issues was that Congress was not willing to accept an expendable platform, ie. ships can not be viewed like aircraft. Tactical aircraft are throw-aways. Interestingly, this aversion is one based in a peace mindset. Every maritime fight we have engged in made use of expendable platforms. Congress has this idea that you can build all miltary hardware to come back from the fight. The idea of expendable assets makes them seize up. These are the folks that watch Saving Private Ryan, and when the good Captain keeps sending his dudes around the corner to assault the machine gun until the troops make it causes them to vomit. The notion that the sacrifice of a few to save the many is beyond them. The idea that men will do this willingly is also beyond them. They honestly think they can save everyone, after all it is just money...
Thus Seafighter, the modern expendable naval platform became FFLs known as LCS 1 & 2.
The development of atomic power, though it could confer unimaginable blessings on mankind, is something that is dreaded by the owners of coal mines and oil wells. (Hazlitt)
What I want to do is to look up C. . . . I call him the Forgotten Man. (Sumner)

GIThruster
Posts: 4686
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm

Re: Go Navy!

Post by GIThruster »

So basically they just sized up from 26 to 40 men (50+ in the case of Independence), slowed the ship 10 knots, paid twice as much and it still fits the same mission package? So the LCS has what, more armor? Better damage control? It certainly doesn't have a nicer radar signature. So what does it have that sea Fighter didn't?

I am not poo-pooing damage control. That is where our ships shined during WWII, and why they kept going back for more battle.

If I had to describe what seems the ultimate Corvette, it would be very much like a Sea Fighter but large enough to operate a pair of MV-22's instead of H-60's and had a pair of Molten Salt Reactors so it could run about 55 knots constantly. Put 300 of those in the field with swappable mission packages and you have a much cheaper Navy in 20 years.
Last edited by GIThruster on Wed Oct 08, 2014 3:01 pm, edited 2 times in total.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

ladajo
Posts: 6258
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:18 pm
Location: North East Coast

Re: Go Navy!

Post by ladajo »

Most of the cost run up is not for crew, it is for shock requirements that were not there in the original. It essentially meant a redo of the entire design to meet the Congressionally mandated increased survivability requirements (shock rating). This also added weight, which in Naval Engineering (and many other) terms equals speed and endurance.

And again, the hulls now support just shy of 100 for manning.

DC is not as robust as true full up warship designs, a lot is automated, as well as the design critieria basically being centered around self evacuation from the fight once hit.

But that said, even harder ships are suspect for timely ability to return to the fight after a hit given the significant improvements in modern weapon punch over old school. Until we get into a real fight again, it is all paper and we just don't know how the ships will really perform. That said, I have WAY more faith in the durability and effectiveness of U.S.N. builds than anyone else. I have seen a lot of other guys' stuff in detail in person, and it just ain't the same.
The development of atomic power, though it could confer unimaginable blessings on mankind, is something that is dreaded by the owners of coal mines and oil wells. (Hazlitt)
What I want to do is to look up C. . . . I call him the Forgotten Man. (Sumner)

GIThruster
Posts: 4686
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm

Re: Go Navy!

Post by GIThruster »

This doesn't need its own thread so I'll stick it here. Y'all know I'm no fan of the F-35, but even I have to admit this is extremely impressive:

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=10150113735642761
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

Post Reply