Alternate warships of nations

[Spencersj345.346]

Say would a slight redesign to zumwalt class in terms of its original weapons loadout and overall ( 1 64 VLS and a 5" gun to replace the guns on the front and some room set aside for future weapons systems and a 3" gun over the stern and room and capabilities to take over for the ticos as air defence lead ships and SAGs including the quarters needed for a admiral and his staff and the spruances at the expense of being a bit bigger) and billeting the class as a cruiser have made the design more likely to have much more of the original build numbers procured?

 

[Jim Smitty]

Honestly if the navy didn't epically screw up AGS it would be useful for over the horizon targeting. Hell with a bit of work I would be willing to bet the AGS could be used to take down a Sunburn or Shipwreck at distance. It would also be good for popping ASM missile platforms like Silkworm in the Strait of Hormuz. Anyone light off the radar to run would be on the receiving in of 1-5-5 rounds before they knew what happened.

What the USN should had done with the Zumwalts is less trying to jump the moon and more phased stuff in. The Railgun should be for latter marks. I would also jump it up by about 3,000 tons and added command and control abilities to allow it be the anti-air C-in-C of the task force. I possibly would stuffed more missiles on it do depending how much extra room was left after adding the C3 abilities and made them the Tico Replacements. Then have a down sized variant, say around 12,000 tons as the Bruke replacement but be more of a GP ship. Then had a smaller ship like the Constellation Class as the ASW ships of the fleet.

 

[Spencersj345.346]

I still maintain the constellation is a program 5 years too late and it probably should have 48 cells. Also in my POV the freedom class should have been a modernized Saar 5 expy since we built those for Israel and they fit basically all the requirements. Or at least some kind of proper corvette and not some weird ass FAC corvette hybrid with the advantages of neither.

With the Independence class being a minesweeper mothership that can take care of itself from moderate threats and not have the strategic mobility as molasses as a direct replacement for the avenger class.

Maybe some cyclone replacements built with the saved cash or more likely the constellations earlier or put into the cruiser zumwalts.
Well that or filling the build slot between the Bush and the Ford that in otl wasn't filled and perhaps keeping the JFK till 2018 as originally planned hence why we only have 11 carriers not 12 right now.
Or programs for tanker, ELINT, and ASW drones in the CAW earlier.

 

[CV12Hornet]

Again with the Sa’ar 5 brainbug? No, the Sa’ar 5 was not suitable for the LCS mission. It has no provision nor space for the mine countermeasures module, lacking endurance and crew spaces, and more importantly the Seahawk is about twice the size of the Sa’ar 5’s helicopter.

Well that or filling the build slot between the Bush and the Ford that in otl wasn't filled and perhaps keeping the JFK till 2018 as originally planned hence why we only have 11 carriers not 12 right now.

Thanks, Rumsfeld. There was supposed to be an interim carrier in between Bush and Ford, with the Ford-class hull and reactors but Nimitz flight systems, but Rumsfeld canned it as not being transformative enough. JFK going away, on the other hand, kinda had to happen given the poor material condition of the ship.

As far as the Zumwalts, at this point I’ve heard multiple conflicting stories as to why the ships were cancelled, so I’m backing out of any Zumwalt discussions until I can get some fucking clarity.

 

[Jim Smitty]

Honestly I put Rumsfeld in the same tier of SecDef as McNamara. He fucked up that badly and did so for years, and like with McNamara we are feeling the effects long after he left.

 

[Spencersj345.346]

Again with the Sa’ar 5 brainbug? No, the Sa’ar 5 was not suitable for the LCS mission. It has no provision nor space for the mine countermeasures module, lacking endurance and crew spaces, and more importantly the Seahawk is about twice the size of the Sa’ar 5’s helicopter.

Thanks, Rumsfeld. There was supposed to be an interim carrier in between Bush and Ford, with the Ford-class hull and reactors but Nimitz flight systems, but Rumsfeld canned it as not being transformative enough. JFK going away, on the other hand, kinda had to happen given the poor material condition of the ship.

As far as the Zumwalts, at this point I’ve heard multiple conflicting stories as to why the ships were cancelled, so I’m backing out of any Zumwalt discussions until I can get some fucking clarity.

Fair enough on the Saar 5. Still the freedom class is way way too big and costly for its notional role and too underarmed for it as well. Plus the gearing problems. Also I was adovating 2 classes still with the bigger one being the minesweeper and similar to the Independence but without the need for speed above say 25 knots. 30 at most

And here's a bigger question why the fuck didn't congress force the interim carrier through and how much work would have been required to keep JFK through 2018 as originally planned?

 

[CV12Hornet]

Fair enough on the Saar 5. Still the freedom class is way way too big and costly for its notional role and too underarmed for it as well. Plus the gearing problems. Also I was adovating 2 classes still with the bigger one being the minesweeper and similar to the Independence but without the need for speed above say 25 knots. 30 at most

And here's a bigger question why the fuck didn't congress force the interim carrier through and how much work would have been required to keep JFK through 2018 as originally planned?

Oh, I don't disagree about the Freedoms, I would've much preferred the USN just going all-in on the Independences after the prototype ships.

Why didn't Congress force the interim carrier through? From what I'm reading, it's because Congress was never involved in that stage of the process, the Navy and DoD weren't even asking for funding at the time:

The Navy originally wanted the carrier after CVN-77 to be a completely new-design
aircraft carrier (hence its initial name of CVNX-1, rather than CVN-78). In May 1998,
however, the Navy announced that it could not afford to develop an all-new design for the
ship and would instead continue to modify the Nimitz-class design with each new carrier
that is procured. Under this strategy, CVN-77 and CVNX-1 were to be, technologically,
the first and second ships in an evolutionary series of carrier designs.

Compared to the baseline Nimitz-class design, CVNX-1 was to require 300 to 500
fewer sailors to operate and would feature an entirely new and less expensive nuclear
reactor plant, a new electrical distribution system, and an electromagnetic (as opposed to
steam-powered) aircraft catapult system. In large part because of the reduction in crew
size, CVNX-1 was projected to have a lower life-cycle operation and support (O&S) cost
than the baseline Nimitz-class design. CVNX-1 was to cost $2.54 billion to develop and
$7.48 billion to procure, giving it a total acquisition cost of $10.02 billion.

In May 2002, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld directed DOD offices to
reexamine the need for 5 major defense acquisition programs, including CVNX-1. In
response, the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) began studying several
alternatives to the Navy’s carrier acquisition plan, including procuring smaller
conventional carriers instead of large nuclear-powered carriers; procuring a repeat version
of CVN-77 in FY2007 instead of CVNX-1; and skipping procurement of CVNX-1.
In November and December 2002, after reviewing these alternatives, OSD decided
to alter the design of CVNX-1 to incorporate additional advanced features originally
intended for CVNX-2 (the name at the time for the next carrier after CVNX-1). These
changes included a new and enlarged flight deck, an increased allowance for future
technologies (including electric weapons), and additional manpower reductions.

Compared to the baseline Nimitz-class design, the ship would now require at least 500
fewer sailors to operate. To signify these changes, the ship’s name was changed from
CVNX-1 to CVN-21. Incorporating the changes increased the ship’s development cost
by about $600 million and its procurement cost by about $700 million. OSD reportedly
did not consider CVNX-1 sufficiently transformational; the CVN-21 proposal appears
intended to increase the transformational content of the ship.

https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA472563.pdf

By the time the plan was presented to Congress, it seems the plan had already been settled in favor of skipping straight to what became Ford.

As for Kennedy, she required a 15-month major overhaul for $350 million, and was at the time the most expensive carrier in the fleet to run, which given the Shitty Kitty and USS 8-reactors Enterprise were still in service is really saying something. And given the Navy expected keeping her in operation would cost $2 billion from FY'07-FY'11, it seems they didn't think the overhaul would full cure that:

In February 2006, the Navy estimated that overhauling the Kennedy and keeping it in service during the five-year period FY2007-FY2011 would cost more than $2 billion.

Navy Aircraft Carriers: Retirement of USS John F. Kennedy - Issues and Options for Congress

The conventionally powered aircraft carrier John F. Kennedy (CV-67) was decommissioned at Mayport, FL, on March 23, 2007. The ship will...

www.everycrsreport.com

Note also that the above document questions whether Kennedy can, lacking an SLEP, keep going until 2018.

 

[Spencersj345.346]

honestly got to wonder how congress didn't just add the interim carrier to the budget whether the DOD wanted it or not. they do do that a lot anyways

 

[Eternity]

Oh, I don't disagree about the Freedoms, I would've much preferred the USN just going all-in on the Independences after the prototype ships.

Why didn't Congress force the interim carrier through? From what I'm reading, it's because Congress was never involved in that stage of the process, the Navy and DoD weren't even asking for funding at the time:

https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA472563.pdf

By the time the plan was presented to Congress, it seems the plan had already been settled in favor of skipping straight to what became Ford.

As for Kennedy, she required a 15-month major overhaul for $350 million, and was at the time the most expensive carrier in the fleet to run, which given the Shitty Kitty and USS 8-reactors Enterprise were still in service is really saying something. And given the Navy expected keeping her in operation would cost $2 billion from FY'07-FY'11, it seems they didn't think the overhaul would full cure that:

Navy Aircraft Carriers: Retirement of USS John F. Kennedy - Issues and Options for Congress

The conventionally powered aircraft carrier John F. Kennedy (CV-67) was decommissioned at Mayport, FL, on March 23, 2007. The ship will...

www.everycrsreport.com

Note also that the above document questions whether Kennedy can, lacking an SLEP, keep going until 2018.

I often wonder why the USN relies on nuke power for the CV's. I mean yea, I get the argument, but wouldn't a conventional plant CV or 5 in mothballs be good as a backup **Just in case**

 

[CV12Hornet]

I often wonder why the USN relies on nuke power for the CV's. I mean yea, I get the argument, but wouldn't a conventional plant CV or 5 in mothballs be good as a backup **Just in case**

Because nuclear power allows for unlimited high-speed steaming and far greater combat endurance.

And you're gonna have to explain why having a conventionally-powered CV is a "backup". 5 in mothballs just plain ain't happening, as JFK's reserve stint shows, the money just isn't there to maintain them properly in that status.

 

[sparky42]

Because nuclear power allows for unlimited high-speed steaming and far greater combat endurance.

And you're gonna have to explain why having a conventionally-powered CV is a "backup". 5 in mothballs just plain ain't happening, as JFK's reserve stint shows, the money just isn't there to maintain them properly in that status.

I can imagine the response from any Congress to the idea of funding a conventional CV, building 5 of them and then sticking them in a reserve and paying to sustain them...

 

[Spencersj345.346]

I can imagine the response from any Congress to the idea of funding a conventional CV, building 5 of them and then sticking them in a reserve and paying to sustain them...

would need to brainwash them or hold guns to their heads to get them to agree and at that point there's a lot more productive things to spend that kind of money on. like more constellations faster, speeding up carrier production, a new cruiser design, more subs, more f-35 Cs, more SAMs, ect.

 

[Eternity]

I can imagine the response from any Congress to the idea of funding a conventional CV, building 5 of them and then sticking them in a reserve and paying to sustain them...

I didn't mean build new, I meant maintain some older ones instead of scrapping them. It's just to me, relying on a sole fuel source is... Silly, given how high-tech and specialist it is. A few other units as backups would make sense in case something random happened to nuclear rods (ie production issues or the like). I mean, they are constantly decaying and require renewing from time to time, and how many nuclear fuel rods do the USN keep lying around as ''spares'? If you run out of fuel rods, you run out of CV's.....

 

[RamscoopRaider]

I didn't mean build new, I meant maintain some older ones instead of scrapping them. It's just to me, relying on a sole fuel source is... Silly, given how high-tech and specialist it is. A few other units as backups would make sense in case something random happened to nuclear rods (ie production issues or the like). I mean, they are constantly decaying and require renewing from time to time, and how many nuclear fuel rods do the USN keep lying around as ''spares'? If you run out of fuel rods, you run out of CV's.....

The Conventional Supercarriers were all beat to hell by the time they left active service, to ensure they'd be useable after a few years in mothballs they'd need major repairs. Also taking a ship out of mothballs takes a very long time

US CVNs* gets one refueling in their lifetimes these days, so they are good for about 25 years between fuelings, they replace them all at the same time. If there are production issues it would only affect 1-3 ships at most, most probably only one. It would probably be as quick to sort out production issues for fuel rods than to reactivate a carrier from deep mothballs



*CdG uses much lower enriched fuel and needs refueling every 7 years

 

[sparky42]

I didn't mean build new, I meant maintain some older ones instead of scrapping them. It's just to me, relying on a sole fuel source is... Silly, given how high-tech and specialist it is. A few other units as backups would make sense in case something random happened to nuclear rods (ie production issues or the like). I mean, they are constantly decaying and require renewing from time to time, and how many nuclear fuel rods do the USN keep lying around as ''spares'? If you run out of fuel rods, you run out of CV's.....

Not much of a chance of that, as mentioned the conventional carriers are beat to hell by the time they were end of lifing, then you get into the difficulties of sourcing parts for ships that age, and then you get into the questions of what level of upgrades would be needed to keep them current, ie would their systems have separate training paths for naval personnel compared to CVN crews...

Probably cheaper to get an extra CVN hull ordered than try to keep ships that old in any readiness level.

 

[Gokbay]

Also speaking of having conventional powered carriers just in case there is an issue with nuclear fuel/reactors, I won't comment on whether of that is sensible or not (most people seem to have said that it is not) but if it is then I think the submarine fleet might be a higher priority issue since the entire USN submarine fleet is nuclear powered at this point.

Like if for some reason all nuclear reactors suddenly stopped working (without causing any external damage) then US could rely on Amphibious Assault Ships as a temporary measure. Yeah, definitely not as good as a full carrier but they still have decent airpower with F-35 and Harrier squadrons they have.
On the other hand they would have no operational submarines left.

 

[Count of Crisco]

Also speaking of having conventional powered carriers just in case there is an issue with nuclear fuel/reactors, I won't comment on whether of that is sensible or not (most people seem to have said that it is not) but if it is then I think the submarine fleet might be a higher priority issue since the entire USN submarine fleet is nuclear powered at this point.

Like if for some reason all nuclear reactors suddenly stopped working (without causing any external damage) then US could rely on Amphibious Assault Ships as a temporary measure. Yeah, definitely not as good as a full carrier but they still have decent airpower with F-35 and Harrier squadrons they have.
On the other hand they would have no operational submarines left.

The main reason I think for the USN having an all nuclear fleet is that their submarines are built for global operations in deep waters, in contrast other big powers (USSR, China, Britain, France) have a need for some big ocean going boats for SSN and SSBN roles, but also have a significant need for smaller submarines for use defending or operating in littoral waters. These submarines were simplier to build in the numbers you wanted if they had diesel engines.

 

[CV12Hornet]

Well, also that tactically nuclear submarines are flatly superior in all respects. That was clear from the first ASW trials against Nautilus.

 

[Winged-One]

Honestly if the navy didn't epically screw up AGS it would be useful for over the horizon targeting. Hell with a bit of work I would be willing to bet the AGS could be used to take down a Sunburn or Shipwreck at distance. It would also be good for popping ASM missile platforms like Silkworm in the Strait of Hormuz. Anyone light off the radar to run would be on the receiving in of 1-5-5 rounds before they knew what happened.

What the USN should had done with the Zumwalts is less trying to jump the moon and more phased stuff in. The Railgun should be for latter marks. I would also jump it up by about 3,000 tons and added command and control abilities to allow it be the anti-air C-in-C of the task force. I possibly would stuffed more missiles on it do depending how much extra room was left after adding the C3 abilities and made them the Tico Replacements. Then have a down sized variant, say around 12,000 tons as the Bruke replacement but be more of a GP ship. Then had a smaller ship like the Constellation Class as the ASW ships of the fleet.

Eh, the Zumwalts were a flawed concept from the outset; ground-launched anti-ship missiles make naval gunfire support a pretty dicey proposition unless you already have sufficient anti-air capabilities that you could move in closer to the shoreline anyways, meaning no point in AGS and thus Zumwalt.

What I would have done was to have both LCS and Zumwalt be stillborn; instead the USN would develop a somewhat general purpose frigate without Aegis but with 32-48 VLS cells as a replacement for the Spruances and Perrys, and then put that into production in largeish quantities, aiming to have somewhere between 1.5-2 frigates per Burke. Maybe with a somewhat more conventional 155mm autoloading gun? (Or 203mm if someone wants to resurrect MCLWG?)

A Ticonderoga replacement (possibly just an enlarged Burke with a better radar, C3 capabilities and more VLS cells, plus room for upgrades) would follow on in the mid 2010s.

 

[Spencersj345.346]

I will note the burke design probably wouldn't be used since a clean slate design for a cruiser since its maxed out. much easier to fit the needed stuff on a blank design.