Skip to content

Build Your Own Navy

Here is a page dedicated to the ever-popular “Build Your Own Navy” series of posts originally created by journalist/blogger David Axe. As the politicians and sailors struggle with what type of naval forces are required to fight 21st Century sea combat, you can use your own wisdom to suggest alternatives. Will it be a fleet of fast catamarans, submarine aircraft carriers, flying battleships or a more traditional fleet? You play Armchair Admiral, and just to make it interesting, you can also include past force structures though please limit this to the modern industrial era.

Other than the major navies like the US, UK, China, or Russia, also feel free to design the fleets of smaller nations such as Canada, the Netherlands, Denmark, or even Singapore. Remember to include your shipbuilding budget, and feel free to utilize the Warship Costs page for reference. For further help, here are the original Build Your Own Navy posts:

Now get to it and inspire me!

*****

127 Comments leave one →
  1. November 28, 2013 12:37 am

    Interestingly stubborn floaters which refuse to get cured can trigger
    a gamut of psychological disorders like depression, stress etc.
    Treatment with Medicines: Minor cases of eye floaters can be cured easily with anti-inflammatory medicines,
    antibiotic drops and herbal extracts. Another anti-oxidant, vitamin E helps to
    protect the eyes from degenerative issues such as eye floaters.

  2. August 4, 2013 1:36 am

    I like to disseminate understanding that will I have accrued through the calendar year to help enhance group functionality.

  3. August 1, 2013 11:47 am

    I like to share understanding that will I’ve built up with the 12 months to help enhance group performance.

  4. July 31, 2013 11:18 pm

    I love to disseminate information that I have accrued with the 12 months to help improve team functionality.

  5. June 30, 2013 12:19 pm

    Good post. I learn something totally new and challenging on sites I stumbleupon everyday.
    It will always be interesting to read through articles from other authors and use
    something from their websites.

  6. May 7, 2013 6:04 am

    Hi there to all, the contents present at this web site
    are actually remarkable for people knowledge, well, keep up the nice work
    fellows.

  7. May 6, 2013 6:04 pm

    I will immediately clutch your rss feed as I can not to find your e-mail
    subscription link or e-newsletter service. Do you’ve any? Please permit me recognise so that I could subscribe. Thanks.

  8. March 18, 2013 9:46 pm

    Hmm it appears like your website ate my first comment (it
    was extremely long) so I guess I’ll just sum it up what I submitted and say, I’m thoroughly
    enjoying your blog. I too am an aspiring blog blogger but
    I’m still new to everything. Do you have any tips for first-time blog writers? I’d really appreciate it.

  9. March 8, 2013 7:21 am

    Pretty section of content. I just stumbled upon your
    site and in accession capital to assert that I acquire actually enjoyed account your blog posts.

    Any way I’ll be subscribing to your augment and even I achievement you access consistently rapidly.

  10. December 20, 2012 1:14 am

    Nice weblog here! Also your site quite a bit up fast! What host are you the usage of?

    Can I get your associate hyperlink on your host? I desire my web site loaded up as quickly as yours
    lol

  11. September 10, 2012 6:13 am

    you should send a fleet of sailors in catamarans equipped with rifle.

  12. August 21, 2012 10:09 pm

    Regarding the aircraft capacity of the smaller carriers.. . .

    Capacity is a function of aircraft size and their flight envelope.

    Given standardization on aircraft of 16,000 lbs MTOW, with takeoff velocities of 60 knots, we eliminate the catapult system. Given landing velocities of 40 knots at minimum weights, and a computerized automatic landing system we can go to a two wire arresting system, further saving deck space and area. Given the smaller size of this aircraft, and folding wings, we minimize space requirements per aircraft, and can carry more of these on a smaller ship.

    May I remind you that carriers of these sizes were the CVAs of WWII/Korea. What has happened is bloat in CVAs, in my view.

    INDY

  13. theg0demperor permalink
    August 18, 2012 8:17 pm

    @mick347

    I only included the projected number of ship crew for the XUV from known sources such BAE systems stating 60. I added approx an extra 20 to fill in for the other added weapon systems.
    I thought since the Type 45 was limited to only 6 ships because of numerous reasons, one being them being cancelled to fund the Type-26 project.
    We could use the XUV’s to help supplement the Type-45′s in the anti air role. (If they are named after other famous ship names that would be really good to see)

    The land attack missiles which I mentioned on the Type-26′s are adaptable for surface and land attack. They wobt be fully feveloped until 2016 i think. The cost adding the system would be relatively small, usually uses the fire control systems already mounted on most if not all major surface vessels.

    I cut the number of amphibious vessels and a handful of others due to our shrinking navy, as in number of vessels. Also now the extra amount of supplies each ship can take on for deployments.
    These days with a future army being very small, I don’t see the need in having the amount we have, its very unlikely we will ever fight a war in our own again judging by how deep the cuts are. So removing them, adding some extra money towards other assests could be much needed.
    Besides, we must look to our potential adversaries in the future, well the most likely ones, besides rouge/failed states China, Iran or Argentina seem the most likely threats.
    More combat capable vessels above amphibous ones seem more plausible.
    The other vessels I did not mention, such as the RFA ships not mentioned to be cut would remain in the fleet.

    From a number of sources, many, including Charles Heyman pointed the cost of the first vessel (Type-45) as being just under £1 billion, about £960 million) hence the trending term of them being refered to as the “billion pound destroyer”. But the costs are more in the region as you say around £600 million or slightly less.

    It was the project development costs which adds the extra hight costs in tota per ship to be around £1 billion eachl. If you don’t include that it does seem fair to assume each Type-45 being far less than the medias claim of being £1 billion.

    Sonny

  14. Anonymous permalink
    August 13, 2012 1:37 am

    Right at the current time, the RN is looking into what they are calling the Type 45X destroyer/carrier that is supposed to launch the Tarantus[sic] UMA though at the current moment there is not enough slips to build anymore ships at their primary shipyards. With 2 CV, 1 DD [T45B], 2 SSBN, and 1 slip for repairs which at the current time is stripping the Invincible of its weapons. And they are preparing for the Type 26 which is according to my sources are going to be named after counties of UK, and at the moment they are shooting for 16 though as we all know with the Type 45 there were supposed to be 8, but went down to six. Though in the current state of the RN they will need more people before they can have more ships. According to the sources that they are looking at the T45X and planning on four of them and rumors are they are to be named after famous ships [Hood, Victory, Warspite, Formidable, and so forth] though these are rumors at the moment and the Type 45 X would not be into service until 2016 at the earliest.

  15. mick346 permalink
    August 12, 2012 10:20 am

    @theg0demperor

    A crew of 60-80 is no where near enough to be able to run that ship, plus all that stuff will not fit into a hull of that size as well as weighing significantly more than 9,000 tons.

    As for the rest of your fleet you have very few amphibious ships, these ships have proved their use in many ways as well as being able to land troops. They are fulfil a different role to the strategic lift of the RAF.

    I also dont see the need for the frigates to have missiles that can attack land targets, you have that capability in your destroyers and submarines. It just means they cost more. Also you have no patrol ships or RFA ships.

    “Cost approx: £1billion (This is going by estimated costs of the Type 45 being around £560million each)”

    The type 45 program cost ~£6bn thats £1bn for each ship and those ships have been built for weapons systems but not fitted with so actual costs will be higher. Though the actual construction cost of last few ships is supposed to be around ~£600m. For a class of two ships with all the weapons, sensors you want the cost would easy be £1.5bn each.

    One final point is you only have 18 escorts for 2 carriers 4 amphibious ships and 2 XUV carriers. Of which only 6 are destroyers that can be used to provide air defence to a task force.

  16. August 11, 2012 6:54 pm

    After reading in depth, I have noticed Kory has already covered the use of the UXV Combatant in any potential fleet.

    According to sources it will be based on the Type-45 hull (Possibly lengthened for the flight deck to accommodate the larger amount of aircraft), hopefully using it’s Sea Viper system or at least the new upcoming Sea Ceptor anti-air system.
    If going by estimated ship specifications/armaments/tonnage and aircraft along with known confirmed/needed specs we can gain many ideas of what the class of ship will have and cost.

    Ship displacement: 9000Tonnes
    Ship length: 160meters (Extra length increased for flight deck at rear end of ship)
    Ship Beam: 30meters (Extra beam increased for double flight deck)
    Ship Draught: 8meters
    Ship crew complement: Approx 60-80 (Not including flight crew/UCAV/UAV handlers)
    The ship will possibly use the SAMPSON Multi tracking radar, the type 1045 along with all other Type-45 radar and tracking systems.
    Would have the SSTD system like all front-line RN ships.
    For sonar, would use the upcoming Type 26 Frigates Sonar 2087.

    Armament:

    Sea Viper missile system: 36 Aster 30 missiles and 24 Aster 15 missiles. (60 in total)
    VLS Fire shadow system: 16 missiles (6 hour loitering and range in excess of 100km)
    CVS401 Perseus land attack/anti ship system: 8missiles (stealthy, multi targeting ability)
    2x 20mm automated guns
    2 x Phalanx CIWS
    2 x miniguns
    6x GPMGS

    Aircraft:

    2 Merlin ASW helicopters or 3 Lynx Wildcat helicopters.
    An assorted mix of UCAVS, possibly Taranis. (From the RAF)
    Assuming possibly a maximum of 6 similar sized aircraft could be carried at any given time due to the limited size of the sips.
    Along with a number of smaller land attack/ASW UCAVS if need be to support troops on land against soft and hard targets if need be.

    Cost approx: £1billion (This is going by estimated costs of the Type 45 being around £560million each)

    To have a fleet capable of foreseeable and the unforeseeable threats in the near and far distant future we would realistically need a larger budget than is currently allowed. That won’t happen so we will have to make do with what we have.

    2 CVF’s in the STOVL design. Each with 16 F-35B’s, 4 ASW Merlins and 4 AEW Merlins as standard. An extra 20 F-35B’s could be added in a major threat, coming RAF/FAA of the RN.

    1 x HMS Ocean LPH assault carrier

    1 x Albion class LPD assault ship (Second one sold on)

    2 x XUV Combatants (One to be in each carrier battlegroup, taking the role of a Type 45 air warfare destroyer, two frigates in it’s ASW hunting operations with the rest of the task group and as a light carrier with it’s small amount of UCAVS)

    3 SSBN ballistic nuclear submarines, replacing Vanguard. Smaller and carrying less ICBM’s

    10 SSN Astutes (Their hidden, high survivability, firepower and dereference is unmatched against potential aggressors)

    6 Type-45s (With added firepower in the form of 16 Fire shadow anti-ship missiles each)

    12 Type-26 Frigates (All with the Type 2087 sonar, 64 Sea Ceptor missles, 16 Fire Shadow anti ship missles and CVS401 Perseus land attack/anti ship system: 8missiles, with a Merlin ASW on board each)

    Would cut the Sandown, Hunter class minehunters/minesweepers to 6 of each, would sell 1 of the Bay class LSD, would also get rid of the contracted/bought point class sea lift ships. Due to the Army being so heavily cut, the transport ships wouldn’t be needed in such numbers. Especially with the RAF fleet of transport aircraft able to do the job too)

  17. theg0demperor permalink
    August 5, 2012 11:25 pm

    I’m quite surprised no one has included any XUV Combatants in their “fantasy fleets” –
    I know concrete details as of yet are scarce, but it seems these will add a huge level of power and flexibility when it/they come into service.

    Judging from the details of it’s planned armament, UCAVS, equipment and other manned aircraft; this vessel could fill the roles of a light carrier, small assault ship, multiple intelligence gathering platform, anti-air/anti-missile defence platform, ASW platform and shore attack/support vessel for troops landing on a hostile shore.

    Taking into consideration the ships designs are taken from the Type-45, it will save huge costs throughout the project as a whole.

    Will plan and design my own fleet sometime soon when I find the time.

    Sonny

  18. July 9, 2012 12:18 pm

    The reason that there is two SSBN’s is because the Astute has its problems and cannot be produced at the specs that it was supposed to have due to cut backs and the reason for the Virginia class SSBN is because it can be built to specs and can be upgraded to replace the V-Class submarines that will be near there decommissioning date in the late 2020′s. All that can hold a nuclear weapons of the UK. Right now, Britain has three classes of Subs that can do the same job so two is no stretch.

  19. July 8, 2012 10:35 pm

    I have them with 14 frigates, not 6. Type 23 frigates will just be in the range of decommissioning in 2020.

  20. July 8, 2012 10:33 pm

    seventeen submarines that is more than the RN has now, remember in the 2020 timeline that I restricted myself to. They cannot build more than that at the current moment. With the Virginia SSBN, and the Astute SSBN, along with an SSK of there choice they can follow through with the next phase of the plan which I call Plan 2030 which implements a new program of building.

    Plan 2030
    Includes preliminary design for a new carrier, and destroyer for the 2045-50 time table.
    1 Queen Elizabeth CVN
    2 Type 45C Destroyers
    6 Type 26 Frigates
    6 more corvettes
    3 Virginia Class SSBN
    8 more SSK
    and an additional 5 patrol boats, and 4 supply ships.

  21. mick346 permalink
    July 8, 2012 6:31 pm

    @kory

    That ship using drones wont be viable till 2030s at least. Plus you need corvettes to patrol littoral waters and do the day to day jobs of the navy. You can in times of war then fit very expensive equipment on them to make them have a very powerful punch for their weight.
    You say frigates are very important but you only have 12 of them? Also you didn’t respond to my bit about your submarines.

  22. July 8, 2012 9:51 am

    Here is the Type 45U destroyer/carrier report, http://gizmodo.com/302873/uxv-combatant-warship-made-for-drone-battles-heralds-robot-apocalypse. Though with the 8,000 ton limit I would be worried. And to show something, the Brits rotate there carriers so the third carrier makes it possible to do that without straining both carriers to much and therefore giving each carrier an additional ten years of life more than they commonly have. One active, one in ready, and one in refit. And the reason I do not have many PCF, FCG, and Subs is if you look at the goal I had set out that is for 2020 and if you look I said that the number of corvettes would double with six ships on the slips.
    However, why would you want to build a corvette anyway? For one they are cheap ships, but without any of the flexibility of lets say a frigate or a destroyer. You would have to build three times the amount of them to cover all the needs of the RN in the first place. Or do you not know that they attempted to do that with the Type 41, 61, 81 and Leander Class mess in the late fifties to the early seventies with the Leander being the most successful class out of those four and that is after they fixed it and so many nations wanted those ships. The patrol boats I could see, now the MCM ships I would have dual function on the patrol boats as such.

  23. mick346 permalink
    July 6, 2012 5:40 pm

    I agree with Dr. George W. Oprisko , you don’t have enough small patrol vessels, or frigates Kory. Why do you want to have two different kinds of SSN as well, that just means too means building and designed two classes of ships for the same role which just increases cost for what benefit? What is a type 45 destroyer/carrier hybrid?

    “Earlier, I proposed that both the USN and RN standardize on 40k ton and 16K ton CVAs and CVVs, using STOL aircraft, like the MIg-29K.
    I did this because current developments in ASBMs are making the large CVAs obsolete.”

    Dr. George W. Oprisko

    The Americans aren’t going to downsize to 40k and for the UK 60k tons is about right in my view for a effective carrier to be able to carry enough planes. Also anti ship missiles can hit a 40k ton ship almost as easy as a 100k ton ship. At 40k ton its not hard to miss (once it’s been found) that’s why you need plenty of escorts to protect the vessel. I don’t think you can have enough planes on a 40k ton carrier to be effective.

  24. July 5, 2012 9:43 pm

    Kory,

    You propose 3 CVAs, which means 3 carrier task forces. These are generally 20-30 ships, including the screen and supply ships. This means 90 ships committed to blue water operations. Yet you provide only 54 ships, including all the SSNs and 10 of the supply ships.

    Your proposal, like most of those emanating from the USN, is short on MCMS ships, and inshore vessels like corvettes, Fast Attack and Patrol Vessels. The problem with this is such vessels are essential to secure port facilities, and approach channels, and to interdict hostile commando operations. Your proposal is woefully short on patrol vessels and helos, and totally lacking in MCMS vessels.

    Earlier, I proposed that both the USN and RN standardize on 40k ton and 16K ton CVAs and CVVs, using STOL aircraft, like the MIg-29K.

    I did this because current developments in ASBMs are making the large CVAs obsolete.

    INDY

  25. July 5, 2012 3:36 pm

    What does the UK have need an international navy for? A good question, with a very simple answer that no one can think of. You see the USN is number one when it comes to world obligations, with Japan number 2. The UK is number three, they have obligations to the Commonwealth for protection. They are also responsible for assisting with protection of Singapore, Yemen, Oman, and there own territories however they also have to be prepared for extraordinary circumstances as well. They are part of NATO and the second biggest member in it, so with this they have to contribute to any NATO missions as they can. In this they are also apart of the ANZAC and the Antarctic Treaty so they have a stake there. And in extreme emergencies they also have to protect there big ally, Canada on the east coast so that there major shipping lanes are not cut off. Thank Germany on this one, in 1939-42 for nearly starving them to death. Now you maybe asking with such a small navy why do they have all of these positions when they should be worried about there own island. Technically, there navy should consist of about 90 ships to cover everything when and if they need it. However, the budget crunch of the seventies and early eighties to the defense fund are still felt today a generation later. In this when USA goes the UK goes. The governments outside of Thatcher’s time did not help the military at all over there the commitments of the UK are many with the few ships that they have available at any one time is amazing. Now with this they with my navy can be great again.

    3x: Queen Elizabeth Class CVN [the third one should be building at that time]
    4x: Type 45U Destroyer/Carrier hybrids
    10x: Type 45B Destroyers [upgraded 155mm, and starstreak missiles]
    8x: Type 23 Frigates
    6x: Type 26 Frigates [with 6 on the slips in 2020]
    6x: Global Combat Corvettes [Tartual IV class]
    4x: American Class Assault Ships
    6x: Fast Attack Boats [mainly to protect the channel, and major metros along the coastlines]
    5x: Astute Class Submarines
    5x: Virginia Class Submarines
    7x: New SSK
    with a 17 ship supply ships and 12 minesweepers.

  26. June 27, 2012 2:32 pm

    Regarding the SSK proposals from Kevin and Mick. There simply aren’t sufficient numbers proposed for the job. The UK is an island nation spanning the region from Brittany to the Orkneys, with many bays and estuaries in which an SSK can lurk or sortie from. I see the SSK as providing reconnaisance and area denial within the EEZ, that is from the high tide mark out fighter attack distance (600 nm). For this purpose, 4 weeks endurance will suffice, and an SSK on the order of the Amur 950 or the Gotland has sufficient capability. I’d think that 25 SSKs or so would be more like it.

    Regarding the CVA issue, the unit mentioned, is over budget, and failing deadlines. It is extremely expensive, and it’s purpose fails me, I say this given the UK no longer has an empire to protect. One essential purpose a carrier task force should provide the country is suppression of threats to shipping, which means operations in the North Atlantic, most likely ASM operations.

    Then there is the issue of the amphibious capability. Is the UK really going to conduct opposed landings? Where? The Falklands? St. Helena? The BIOT?

    Regarding the SSBNs, wouldn’t it be much cheaper to use TELs? And… against whom will the missiles be used? The USA?

    My proposals WRT the USN, will mean larger manning levels, with most of the fleet operating within the EEZ, and sufficient forces to secure the North Atlantic and North Pacific shipping lanes, plus enough amphib bottoms to land a division of marines against opposition. It involves doing away with the osprey, using helos and C130s instead.

    INDY

  27. June 27, 2012 2:17 pm

    Kerry,

    I strongly disagree with your view. Indeed, there may well be such legislation. But,
    truth be told, a sovereign can do whatever he wants, including paying for domestic
    construction of ships under license, or construction of similar ships domestically.

    The examples I used, were chosen to reflect the best available designs that provide the capabilities I felt necessary.

    For example, the Spanish CVS is very similar, and indeed copied the basis behind Adm Zumwalts small carrier design. The US licensed the Harrier, and proceeded to make changes to it. Given, the proper sort of incentive, the US could either license the MIG29K, or better yet, develop a STOL fighter of it’s own, using modern natural laminar flow airfoils, slats and double fowler flaps.

    The importance of STOL fighters is extreme, WRT CV design. The USSR eliminated 1 wire on the Kuznetsov using a hands off automated landing system, but goint to STOL means relative velocities on the order of 20-40 knots during landings, greatly reducing
    the danger of such operations.

    INDY

  28. June 26, 2012 11:53 pm

    The RN is in trouble already due to the ministry being told by the PM that they have to cut there budget by 5% if the proposal goes through. Which would mean delays of the other ships in the RN except for the Queen Elizabeth Class that is to be in trial runs in mid-2013. Which would pull back the acquisition of a second carrier that is already 50% built not until 2019 if this passes. Not to mention that the PM is a total twat by not realizing that he is a ruler of an island nation and I am cutting the two services that are defending my land. In the RAF and the RN.

    Now to respond to what the RN should look like in 2020:
    3x: Queen Elizabeth Class CVN [the third one should be building at that time]
    4x: Type 45U Destroyer/Carrier hybrids
    10x: Type 45B Destroyers [upgraded 155mm, and starstreak missiles]
    8x: Type 23 Frigates
    6x: Type 26 Frigates [with 6 on the slips in 2020]
    6x: Global Combat Corvettes [Tartual IV class]
    4x: American Class Assault Ships
    6x: Fast Attack Boats [mainly to protect the channel, and major metros along the coastlines]
    5x: Astute Class Submarines
    5x: Virginia Class Submarines
    7x: New SSK
    with a 17 ship supply ships and 12 minesweepers.

  29. mick346 permalink
    June 23, 2012 6:13 pm

    My fleet for RN

    2 Queen Elizabeth Class Carriers, though would be CATOBAR carrying:
    36 strike aircraft
    4 strike aircraft modified for electronic warfare
    4 AWAC aircraft
    6 Helicopters for SAR, also can be used in ASW or Troop carrying.

    Costing £4b each (not inc aircraft)

    4 SSBN

    Costing £3b

    5 LPD each able to carry 800 troops

    Costing £500m each

    5 SSK for Operating in littoral environment around UK and overseas territories

    Costing £400m each

    10 SSN

    Costing £1b each

    10 Minesweepers

    Costing £50m
    35b
    44.6b
    7.2b
    51.8b
    54.2bn
    12 Type 45 Destroyers primary role is air defence of large area to protect fleet armed with:
    1 155mm naval gun with a range of 100km.
    4 CIWS (30mm)
    64 VLS cells- 8 TLAM 16 SM-3, 32 ASTER 30 and 32 short range SAM (quad packed)
    8 Anti Ship Missiles

    Costing £800m each

    18 Type 26 Frigates primary role is anti submarine and ship warfare with ability to defend its self from missile and air attack armed with:
    1 155mm naval gun
    2 CIWS (30mm)
    6 Torpedo Tubes
    16 Anti Ship Missiles
    32 Short range SAM’S (range of up to 20km)

    Costing £400m each

    24 Corvettes (small fast vessels about 1,500 tons) lightly armed used for policing waters against low intensity threats but with space to add plenty of anti ship missiles and SAMs to make them very effective in littoral waters in asymmetrical warfare.

    Costing £100m when outfitted with only basics.

    Total Cost = £54.2bn

    Royal Fleet Auxilary

    2 Main Fleet Tankers ( 50,000 tons)
    8 Fast Support Tankers (30,000 tons)
    5 RO/RO LSD ships (capable of carrying 400 troops each)
    7 Replenishment Ship (40,000 tons)
    1 training/casualty receiving ship
    5 Ocean Survey vessels
    1 Antarctic Patrol vessel
    1 Forward Repair Ship

    Assume RFA 30 Vessels cost about £16bn which is over £500m each

    so lets say £70bn for total fleet.

    Assuming each ship has a life of 30 years then thats £2.3bn per year on construction which i think is a reasonable to pay for a decent fleet that would secure the uk as the second best navy in the world for the next 30 years.

  30. June 23, 2012 11:15 am

    [knock, knock] Response, okay I see what you are trying to do. But, there is a slight problem with this there is no way that any aircraft on your carriers would work especially the MIG-29K because of a clause in the contracts that only an American companies may bid on contracts for the defense department. Their are only two nations that have this policy and that is Japan and USA. Your fleet would have to be smaller due to that the US Navy would have to be at a wartime stance in order to man it. I am going to put up what the US Naval fleet of a mere 267 ships would consist of.

    6-Gerald Ford Aircraft Carriers
    10-Nimitz Class Carriers
    6- UXV carriers [like the Jeep Carriers of World War 2]
    6- Essex LPD/Assault Carriers
    12- CCX cruisers
    16- Modified Shiloh Class Cruisers
    18- Zumwalt Class DDG
    18- Takanami Class DDG
    75- Arliegh Burke Class DDG
    50- F100 Class FFG
    50- Formidible Class FFG
    15- LPH[X]

    10-Triparte mine sweepers
    10 Lewis and Clark

    Submarines
    20- Virginia Class Submarines
    10- Seawolf Class Submarines
    10- Modified Ohio Class Submarines
    20- SSK

  31. June 23, 2012 2:19 am

    My thinking WRT aircraft is occasioned by the adoption of smaller more accurate AAG missiles.

    The marines have adopted Laser guided 70mm – 14 Kg missiles for use against trucks, armoured cars, and SP artillery. The Brimstone at 55 Kg proved itself in Libya against tanks and pill boxes. The 100 Kg laser guided bomb is suficient for most hardened targets.

    This means that a ground attack aircraft with a useful load of 1500 Kg can carry:
    2 – AIM 9X
    480 – 30 mm Cannon rounds
    6 – Brimstone
    20 – 70 mm Guided Rockets

    At a gross weight of 3500 Kg in a turbo prop pusher configuration of 1500 hp
    With a max speed of 450 Knots, a cruise speed of 300 Knots, and the ability to loiter and deliver ordinance at 100 knots thanks to fowler flaps and slats: ie; the aircraft is STOL. with TOD (50ft) of 200m

    INDY

  32. June 23, 2012 2:02 am

    A 300 Billion 1350 ship – 550 aircraft Navy for the US
    10 CvS “Principe de Asturias” ASW task forces containing 17 SeaHarriers, 12 A565 Panther Helos, 4 Type 45 DDs, 6 Nansen Frigates, 6 Maestral ASW Frigates

    5 CVV “Oriskany” multi-purpose Task Forces containing 30 Mig 29Ks, 10 A565 Panthers, 2 E2Ds, 4 Type 45 DDs, 6 Nansen FFGs, 6 Maestral FFGs,

    14 Coastal Squadrons containing
    1 Maestral FFG, 2 Soldato FFGs, 4 Minerva Corvettes, 8 Fearless PV, 8 Hunt Class MCMVs, 1.25 E2Ds, 30 Mig 29Ks, 2 Skorpene SSKs, 4 Amur SSKs, 4 S1000 SSKs, 1 Barracuda SSN, 0.5 Le Terrible SSBN

    4 Amphibious Task Forces containing:
    1 Rotterdam LPD, 2 Endurance LPDs, 16 LCM-1E Landing Craft, 16 A565 Helos, 2 Des Moines Class CAs, 12 C130Js,

    INDY

  33. April 21, 2012 1:36 pm

    I’ve been working on a piece of fiction with someone else and we have ran into a little of a tiff on an agreement on the size of the RN if certain things were to happen the person said, that the size of the RN in the type of situation that we put them in would increase however not in any major ships like CV or DD, but in FFG and FS sized craft. However I think that in the situation that we put them in the RN would effectively double in size.

    My Friend thinks this would be the RN if what we put them through happens.
    2x – Queen Elizabeth CV
    6x- Type 42 Destroyers [and going down due to their age]
    6x- Type 45 Destroyers
    10x- Type 23 Frigates
    8x- Type 26 Frigates
    6x- SSK
    8x- SSBN

    What I think would happen if we put them through this situation
    4x-Queen Elizabeth CV
    A development or an agreement of a CVL/LHD/or the UXV carrier like the Colossus Class
    The run down of the type 42 destroyer.
    8x- Type 45 destroyers
    5x- A modified Type 45 destroyer with the 6 in gun, and mk 57 VLS for harpoon or tomahawk or any missiles for that purpose that they have in development, and RAM mounted. [Type 45R if you will]
    10x- Type 23 Frigates
    10x- Type 26 Frigates
    12x- SSK
    18x- SSBN {Astute, Vanguard, Trafalgar]

    and of course enough ships for support.

    The situation that we put them in, is a Lone Wolf terror attack [non-nuclear] that levels London during the 2012 Olympic games, so to let you know. If this happens we are so toast that we be charcoal.

    Would like opinions, of the knowledgable people on this webzone and thank you.

  34. JBRobbo permalink
    April 12, 2012 6:56 am

    Personally if the F-22 never becomes available for export, i believe an enhanced F-15SE Silent Eagle ‘block II’ would be more suitable for Australia’s and Canada’s similar requirements, particularly its long range. However as impressive as the current Boeing offer is to South Korea’s current fighter procurement program i believe it could be better still.

    (The F-15SE Silent Eagle is basically an F-15E Strike Eagle but with reduced radar signature, modified conformal fuel tanks to carry internal weapons, 15 degree canted vertical tails, reduced weight, a sensor suite borrowing technology from the F-22 and F-35 including APG-82 AESA radar, AN/AAS-42 passive IRST system, a digital electronic warfare system, dual joint helmet mounted cueing systems’, and fully digital glass cockpit. Also includes the SNIPER XR targeting pod, TIGER EYES navigation pod, and is powered by 2 x F100-PW-229 or F110-GE-129 engines producing 29,000lbf of thrust each)

    Improvements;

    * 2 x F100-PW-232/F110-GE-132 engines with three-dimensional pitch-yaw-balance-beam-nozzles and each producing 32,500lbf of thrust for greatly enhanced turning performance and improved thrust-to-weight ratio. It is currently unknown if either of these engines can supercruise.
    * Extensive structural re-design to reduce weight and reduce radar signature in similar fashion to the Su-35S Flanker. Markedly reduced empty weight with the extensive adoption of ultra-lightweight composites within the airframe; + removal of spine speed brake as thrust vectoring can more than compensate. This will further reduce weight and decrease wing loading, in turn further improving turning performance.

    In combination with the F-15SE’s standard features, this version is atleast on par with any competing Air Superiority Fighter in the world to include the Su-35S Flanker, EuroFighter Typhoon, Rafale, and Mig-35, and even the F-22 cannot be guarunteed success in a theoretical close-in engagement as it has a combination of excellent wing loading and thrust to weight figures, especially with low payloads @ 50% fuel, as well as three dimensional thrust vectoring enabling it to perform high angle of attack manouevers not possible in other F-15′s, or many other aircraft for that matter.

  35. JBRobbo permalink
    April 12, 2012 3:34 am

    I think supporting 4 x Virginia class could be easily achievable with a relatively minor investment, the only issue is the nuclear powerplant and the obvious differences in requirements to support and maintain nuclear instead of conventional propulsion, further burdened by the presently inadequate facilities and number of skilled workers in the Australian industrial sector. The more extensive scheduled overhauls such as re-fuelling of the nuclear reactor etc. can be done in the United States, all other facets of maintaining/repairing/updating the submarines can be performed in Australia in the same fashion as the Collins class.

    I assume you are Canadian? Well you have exactly the same issue as Australia – replacing the legacy F/A-18A/B Hornet, known in Canada as the CF-18 i believe. The best replacement available is clear, the F-22A Raptor but the problem is the US Government’s refusal to sell the aircraft to anyone, not even its closest allies such as Australia, Canada, UK etc.

    The F-35A is thoroughly outmatched by the F-22 in traditionally critical factors for an air superiority fighter i.e. the F-35 has poor wing loading (weight/wing area) as well as mediocre thrust-to-weight ratio, top speed, and combat radius, while not featuring thrust-vectoring or a traditional bubble-canopy.Furthermore its single F135 engine, although the worlds most powerful, is not designed to ‘supercruise’ at speeds greater than mach 1 without afterburner, an energy advantage that the F-22 currently has over all potential opponents, flying extremely high and at up to mach 1.82 giving his AIM-120D missiles longer range, and the ability to enter/exit an engagement at will. The F-35′s stealth features are optimised to defeat X-band radars often found in hostile Fighter aircraft, but have little effect on radars of other frequency bands that are common in ground or naval based surface-to-air missile systems, in contrast, the F-22A’s multi-spectral stealth is effective against almost all frequencies. Furthermore, the shape of the F-35A, the wing sweep angle, fixed inlet design etc. is optimised for combat air support and ground-attack missions, not high supersonic speeds and turning performance like the F-22. The shaping of the aircraft is also critical for reducing radar cross signature, the F-35 is designed to have a claimed radar cross signature of 0.001m2 but only from a frontal aspect; while the sides or rear of the aircraft will have substantially higher radar cross signatures. On the other hand the F-22A has a 0.0001m2 radar cross signature from a frontal aspect and marginally higher side and rear signatures. The F-35A will also be limited by its overall small size which limits internal fuel capacity (particularly with an internal weapons bay) and also limits its radar-aperture performance, i.e. diameter of array x power of unit which is the main factor in determining a radar’s max. range, and while the F-22′s APG-77 AESA is already superior to the F-35′s APG-81, the eventual introduction of large aperture AESA arrays into larger competing aircraft such as the Su-35S Flanker (which also shares the same advantages over the F-35 as the F-22, albeit to a lesser extent and without stealth) will eventually mitigate any theorised advantage the F-35A has now, and may not have at all once it finally enters service. The one saving grace for the F-35A in my opinion is its An/AAQ-37 DAS ‘Distributed Aperture System’ which features several thermal cameras distributed around the aircraft for 360 degree spherical coverage. The thermal cameras can act as an infra-red search and track system and to assist in navigation and targeting, theoretically making manouvering in a dogfight irrelevant as the F-35A can engage targets behind the aircraft using the IRST function and engage them with high off-boresight all-aspect IR homing missiles such as the AIM-132 ASRAAM or AIM-9X block II Sidewinder, however with no such system ever fielded before, history as shown that most bold technological advances such as this one either end in failure or dont offer the capability originally claimed. Lets hope this isn’t true for the F-35A or it will likely suffer a similar fate to the Vietnam era F-105 Thunderchief.

    So many Reasons for the F-22 v F-35………

    1. Proven and already in service, with a fixed cost price, production line can be easily re-opened.
    2. Longer Range
    3. Can carry double the amount of air-air missiles
    4. has true multispectral all-aspect stealth, radar, infra-red, visual, EW
    5. Can supercruise at a demonstrated mach 1.82 without afterburners (greater than the max. speed achievable in full afterburner in an F-35) but with drastically lower fuel consumption and an energy advantage over any current or projected opponent.
    6. Much higher thrust-weight ratio, able to accelerate in a vertical climb and without afterburners out-climb an afterburning F-15A Eagle (which broke and held 8 time-to-climb world records)
    7. Much lower wing loading i.e agility
    8. Has the worlds most powerful AESA radar – the 1500 module high-power aperture APG-77
    9. Has two-dimensional thrust vectoring nozzles for its twin F119-PW-100 egines to enable high angle-of-attack manouvers such as the ‘pugachevs cobra’ , the ‘kulbit’ and the J-turn to be performed, which could be advantageous in a short range aerial engagement or ‘dogfight’. The F-35 cannot perform these manouvers.

  36. April 11, 2012 8:09 pm

    I just have one question, and it is not the destroyer question. Due you think that Australia has the facilities to handle a Virginia class submarine? And I see what you mean about the cruisers someone brought that up a couple of months ago, if it was you then you are following through. Though with the falling through of Canada to the F-35 and without Canada involved since they have been frozen [see others], are they going to go through with it, still.

    An addendum if Canada gets the Rafale, in my opinion they are dumber than bricks. The F/A-18 Super Hornet would be fine, but if I was Canada when it comes to that I would go look at the JAS-39 Gripen. Costs 90% of the Rafale with better packages for weapons then the Rafale whose weapons are all home spun in France. The Gripen can use the same weapons as the CF-188 the Canadian version of the F/A-18C that they have been running for about twenty years.

  37. JBRobbo permalink
    April 11, 2012 7:08 am

    Although this proposed fleet surface combatant model will likely cost marginally more than the original Force 2030 model, substantially more money could be saved by scrapping the current plans to develop and build 12 x new Australian Submarine from scratch and instead operating a mixed fleet of 4 Virginia block III class nuclear submarines either leased or bought off-the-shelf from the USN + 8 x Vidar 36A diesel/air-independent-electric submarines – a new rare large 3,600tonne 86m conventional submarine design, developed for the export market by BMTDSL of the UK with numerous futuristic-minded features such as a reel-extended communications relay for satellite communications while running deep, but most notably a modular mission wet/dry hangar for deploying S.A.S.R or clearance divers, or for carrying more diesel-fuel or weapons (8-12-cell VLS for Tomahawk/Arclight is apparantly an optional ‘cassette’ mission module) that is available off-the-shelf with no development costs. It’s size enables it to have very similar range, endurance, speed, agility and payload capacity to the existing Collins class submarines, all essential features for Australian submarines and is why it is difficult to find off-the-shelf options as most conventional submarine designers are from Europe, which are focused on confined areas such as the Meditteranean or the Baltic. It can also provide all of the advanced features outlined in the Force 2030 white paper for the proposed future submarine such as in addition to the traits outlined above, enhanced stealth, modularity, and capacity to salvo-launch missiles to strike land targets many thousands of nautical miles away, while having improved electronic countermeasures, electronic support measures, sonar, radar, electro-optical and combat systems.

    The Virginia class in particular though is where the most money will be saved, as the USN is constantly introducing them to service in large numbers, and therefore gradually lowering and lowering unit cost. For a reduced price, Australia could get one hell of a nuclear hunter/killer submarine – arguably the world’s best, as it is virtually undetectable, is capable of 35+ knot submerged speeds, with virtually unlimited range limited only by food supplies, a suite of state-of-the-art sensors and combat systems and a very large payload capacity.

  38. JBRobbo permalink
    April 11, 2012 5:35 am

    ……………………sigh. Its not that i dont like you, I dont ‘troll’ or argue with people for the sake of it, I just think you should get your facts straight and learn more about what you say, because alot if is wrong, most slightly but others completely off mark e.g. your Fritdjof Nansen-Hobart class theories. Learn more about the specifications of different classes’ of ships, specifically sensor and weapon fitouts and in turn the capabilities that they provide, and you will realise your choices make little sense both capability wise and cost effectiveness wise, yet you disagree with my ‘Cost & Range requirements considered – ideal RAN beyond 2020′ post, which itself is based on the ‘Force 2030: Defence White Paper’ with slight changes.

    Here is an explanation for the changes i have made.

    Original Force 2030 envisioned surface combatant force; 3 x Hobart class Destroyers (Navantia F-100/Alvaro de Bazan class) from 2014 onwards + 8 x est. 7000 tonne Future Frigates (RAN have been linked with the UK’s Type 26 Frigate) from 2020-2025 onwards

    My proposed surface combatant force; 3 x ex-USN Ticonderoga class Cruisers (USS Port Royal, Lake Erie and Shiloh) all upgraded under USN cruiser modernization program and fitted with ballistic missile defence block 3.6 capability + 8 x Hobart class Destroyers.

    Why USS Port Royal, Lake Erie and Shiloh?
    The Ticonderoga class Cruisers are nearing the end of their service life, however they remain the most powerful surface combatants in the US Navy if not the world, better or on par with the latest versions of the Arleigh Burke flight IIa class, as both feature the Aegis combat system and SPY-1 radar, however the Tico’s 122 x mk41 mod 0 VLS cells offer unmatched firepower. USS Shiloh, Lake Erie and Port Royal are the only 3 ships of the Ticonderoga class to be equipped with Aegis ballistic missile defence block 3.6 capability, they are also already upgraded under the cruiser modernization programme, featuring two mk4 models of the mk45 127mm gun, two block 1B models of the Phalanx CIWS, upgraded SPS-49 radar to SPS-49(V)1 standard, fitment of an SPQ-9B horizon search radar, upgraded SQS-53 sonar, etc. etc. For the capability that this ship provides, at a relatively bargain price, it would be worth the increased operational costs involved with maintaining an ageing platform, however, ideally all ships would be extensively overhauled upon reaching Australia where they could be inspected, NDT tested, components repaired/replaced if necessary, and repainted, while also providing an opportunity to fit additional equipment/sensors; i.e. CEA-MOUNT radar to replace/augment the 4 x SPG-62 radars used in the mk99 fire control system, Sagem VAMPIR NG IRST etc.

    With the contract already signed for the initial 3 Hobart class ships, and a huge $8+ billion AUD invested in the program, it makes alot of sense cost effective wise to build more of the class, as not only are development and infrastructure already paid for, but it would progressively drive costs down for each additional ship produced as well as maintaining a skilled workforce for future shipbuilding projects and 1,000s of jobs in the shorter term, as there is an estimated 7-year gap from end of production of last Hobart class until the estimated start of construction the projected Future Frigate. Secondly, the Hobart class is a very capable ship, one of the most powerful in the world, possessing an almost identical sensor fitout and carrying the same weapons as the benchmark Ticonderoga and/or Arleigh Burke class, while carrying the same weapons (albeit in smaller numbers), making it lightyears more capable than the projected Type 26 Destroyer which Australia are apparantly interested in co-developing with the UK. The Force 2030 whitepaper is inherently limited by having only 3 Aegis equipped fleet air defence ships, supported by 8 middle-tier frigates with anti-air systems orientated more for self-defence. The advantages in my 11-ship Aegis force in efficiency, redundancy, deterrent value and overall capability in my proposed future fleet model are clear. The current force structure model is incredibly vulnerable to saturation missile attack if any of the 3 aegis equipped ships are out of action, particularly if out of range of supporting RAAF aircraft, and considering the limited forward air bases available and short combat radius of the existing F/A-18A/B Hornets and their projected replacement, the F-35A Lightning II,……… that isn’t very far from the Australian mainland.

    Will explain other changes in the near future, sick of typing.

  39. April 10, 2012 12:31 am

    Okay, let me prove something. The Nansen class and the class you are pointing out came out at the same time. According to the RAN about two years ago, they were looking at something with the firepower of the Bazan class, but with a ship size that they were used to and the last time that the RAN had mainstay destroyers, not light destroyer like the Perth [Adam's class] was back about a quarter of a century when they were running British ships like the Daring class. Now think on this u may think that I am an idiot. But, read other post there are people on here that actually thought my RAN was about right. Let me guess you are someone that thinks they know it all about what a certain nation is doing do you have a link to the Minstery of Defence for Australia we will not know until it comes out. Now with everything equal in the world who says it is going to look like what you say it is. For all we know is that they are getting a new destroyer class which may I point out they need, and two that they are getting some air projection ships based on the Juan Carlos class.

    Here is the thing, your choices of destroyers when you came back at me like a blubbering child yes they are good ships. Though the Atago Class is to stop at two, and the Kongo are nearly a decade old already. South Korea ships are good, but here is the thing just because they are fitted with Harpoon, and not any other SSM does not make the Harpoon the best missile in the world. The reason that they are on a lot of ships is because they are numerous. If I was to design a destroyer like ship, I would not have the Harpoon or Sparrow missile systems on it at all, nor would I have a 127mm gun on it either. No, I am not going there I am going to take the high road here, and be the better person before I go on some tirade that I’ll likely regret.

    Look you look at my fantasy fleet the nightmare fleet of the US, and you see I do not just stay with one nations ships designs. And my weapons are all over the board if you were to piece it out. Here is the point before I get to buggered to write this down. I have the knowledge that you are not apartied to, if you look I nail the RAN in what they are doing does this mean I know what I am doing when it comes to this sort of thing. Hell, no I took a shot in the dark and estimated what they needed and calculated from there. If I am not mistaken you should look at my RCN fleet design, what am I right not really I got the numbers right but not the ship qualifications. You may have some knowledge like everyone on here. The best thing for you to do is to read what we’ve said and take it from there. We may not always be right, but we are on here to discuss and to learn with others knowledge to correspond with people like us. This is a place where people talk and not yelling that person a is dumb, or the dog’s bullocks here because our information is wrong due to our guesses. However, this is a place where people of like minds come together and talk as a group not as to see who is right. If you were right all the time, then the world must seem a boring place to you.

    Though I got to say u bring the sixs and sevens to shame here. Now I see you dropped the carrier idea what are you sure that you want to give up that part of your arguement. You see here this will be my last post directed at you, because I have better ways of spending my time. Like going out on a date, figuring out what in the hell is the USN is doing to the fleet, going out for a walk, and possibly posting something better than this drivel that I am posting in conflict with myself due to that this is not the way that I handle my business. You see I come for the comroddery and the purpose of solving problems and right now you have made yourself a massive jerk in this room. Look if you do not like me, I am not here for you to like. Though I do think you can learn one thing on this site, and that is patience of people. If you do not make mistakes then life is pretty boring.

  40. JBRobbo permalink
    April 9, 2012 1:48 am

    You really aren’t worth arguing with. Your yet another idiot with a computer and no idea, but your stereotype annoys me and i feel implored to react . Your May 18, 2011 1:54 pm post clearly describes what you know, which is fuck all. Its about some magical fleet that would theoretically defeat the US Navy but with absolutely no explanation of how it would do this, why so many different classes of ships that mainly offer near-identical capabilities are used, and why some were designed in previous generations and feature obsolete technology. Some are even made up in your head with zero mention of armament and the sensors required to permit shooting those weapons. It is clear that you must like the physical appearances of these classes of ships, and therefore think they’re good, atleast that is all i can assume, because it makes no sense, another example of that could be in your recent reply which said that instead of the Canberra class, the Hyuga class would be a superior choice, as well as the future America class even though both of your choices are completely different for starters, one is an ASW orientated helicopter-only carrier significantly smaller than even the Canberra class without fixed-wing aircraft or any amphibious capability whatsoever, while the America class also does not feature a well deck to allow dismounting of landing craft to deploy heavy forces ashore such as the M1A1 Abrams.

    You also state that the Hobart class is fitted out more similarly to the Fritdjof Nansen class ASW Frigates than the Spanish Alvaro De Bazan class which again shows you know fuck all. The Fritdjof Nansen only has a single mk41 8-cell VLS for 32 Evolved Sea Sparrow compared to the Alvaro de Bazan and the Hobart class’ which both have a 48-cell mk41 VLS, it has a different radar – the SPY-1F intended for small Frigates, whereas the Hobart class has the latest version of the SPY-1D which is also installed on the spanish F-100 Alvaro de Bazan, as well as US Navy Arleigh Burke, Japanese Kongo and Atago class, and South Korean King Sejong the Great class Destroyers. The Nansen class carries the Norwegian developed Naval Strike Missile instead of the Harpoon II, the sonar suite is completely different, etc. etc. the list goes on. Explain to me how exactly it is more familar with the Hobart class than the Spanish F-100 Alvaro de Bazan, i would love to hear it,

    Can you also explain why would you incurr increased development and overall purchasing costs, slow production because of inevitable differences in construction techniques, and manpower skills required when some of your ships in your magical navy offer almost identical capabilities that would negate any reason to have several completely different ship designs that do the same job.

  41. April 4, 2012 9:17 pm

    Okay, I have now something to arc about. First of all let me poke a few holes in your argument that you have stated. And I think many people on here can back this, for one for one the Juan Carlos class does have the capability to carry F-35B’s but in the original planning it did not. I am only using the information that I had at the time. But, to compare to the Chakri Naurbet[sic] which is not a carrier at all but the world’s most expensive yacht that is rarely out to port due to the operational cost, and the aging Illustrious class not to say it is a bad ship at all hell it went through the Falklands War. But even, the RN says that there is many problems with it due to its advancing age. And do not even let me get started on the Cavour class, to simply say that it is a piece of junk is dishonoring junk. The reason is this you cannot tell if it is supposed to be a LHC or a carrier. In this the better carrier for the Italians is the Garibaldi and it was built in the eighties. Here is a question I’ve got for him. These light carriers that you say are the greatest thing since sliced bread, lets go through the careers of them that you pointed out. We will not even talk about the operational yacht. I am starting with the Cavour class, it has never left the Med, except once and that was to Britain for a conference. No operations undertaken through this carrier, and we will not count Libya either. Most of the air power came from the island of Sicily, and the surrounding islands. Now for the Juan Carlos newly built to take over for another light carrier the Principe de Asturias [sic] as the flag ship of the Spanish fleet. The older carrier has had the career of Iraq 1, and others. Now the granddaddy of the light carriers in your list, the Illustrious class with three carriers that have experienced war on a scale unlike the others that you have listed from the Falklands, to Afghanistan these carriers have paid for themselves. Though you claim that these are the best carriers, but there is one light carrier that you forgot and it’s history trumps all including the Illustrious class carrier, and that is the Colossus Class that have put in seven decades of service for many nations.

    If these light carriers are good Illustrious, Colossus, and the Garibaldi classes. But the Cavour is utter crap, and the Naurbet is not a true operational carrier. The only hope for this category of ships is the American Class Amphibious Ship, and the Hyuga class Helicopter destroyer.

    Now for the Hobart class, if you look at what I said you’d realize that the F-100 frigate of Spain, and the frigate that I pointed out are based on one another. The equipment resembles more of the frigate that I pointed out then that of the Spanish one. And in this I will leave it before I go into a tirade of the differences now look at a book and compare that to the Australian format and you might find yourself eating crow.

  42. JBRobbo permalink
    April 4, 2012 3:55 am

    Quote from ‘Kory MacDonald’ – “They will have two small carriers based on the Juan Carlos Class (SP) the reason that it costs 2.5X the amount is due to that the copter is different then what is on the deck of the ship. The Spanish use the Augusta (sic) which is not what the Aussies use in the SH-60 Seahawk, and then there is the capability that the Juan does not have a air projection force in either Harrier or a F-35 variant that is on the table for them to pick up. The Adelaide class is supposed to be able to carry a dozen of either Harrier or the F-35. In essence the new class is a jeep carrier with amphibious abilities as well. Though there is few things like the Surface to Air missile employed on the new class of jeep carrier while the Juan Carlos only has a Phalanx, the Adelaide has both Sea Sparrow, and a place for a RAM (Rolling Air Frame) Missile launcher. The new Hobart class destroyer is based on the Fridjof Nansen from Norway, though again there is various weapons swaps a stretched hull and a couple new abilities.

    But to stimulate conversation here if I had the minister of Defenses ear I would suggest this to him about his new ship building program.

    Get another Adelaide going (from 2 to 3) and do what the RN does with their carriers and only have two activated at any one time with the third on quick reserve.

    Get the Hobart’s class, but up the count from 3 to 5; the new Type 26 frigates I would get 10 of them, and the type 27 frigates and get 5 of those. Then see if you can to get an America Class Light Carrier to further push our air projection force.

    With the frigates it is time to dispatch the Perry class frigate see if you can get someone else to see if they can get another seven to ten years out of them like New Zealand with that in the bank, see about getting some Trafalgar class from the UK and have a SSK on the boards in 2015 like the Type 214 from Germany.”

    A few things…….

    1. Spain operate SH-60 Seahawk’s and Sea Kings. It is designed to be able to accommodae the Sea Harrier, the F-35B Lightning II, the SH-60/MH-60R, Sea King, NH-90/MRH-90, CH-47F and Tiger ARH. Even if they did have to modify it, there is simply no way they would result in the Canberra class being 2.5 times as expensive as their virtually identical Spanish counterpart the Juan Carlos 1.
    2. You state that the Juan Carlos class has no air projection capability which is far from the truth, evident by the bow ski-jump specifically used for operating STO/VL aircraft such as the F-35B, which after initial uncertainty, will also be present on the Australian variants. Furthermore, at over 230m long and 27,000 tonnes in displacement it is much larger in size than many dedicated light aircraft carriers such as the Spanish Navy’s own 195m/16,700t Principe de Asturias class, the 182m/11,486t Thai Navy’s HTMS Chakri Naruebet, and the Royal Navy’s 209m/22,000t Invincible class. It is very close in size, and similar in capability to the Italian Navy’s new Aircraft Carrier ‘Cavour’ which is 244m long and 30,000 tonnes full load. The Canberra class will be able to carry up to 12 aircraft within the hangar, and up to 6 aircraft can be parked on the flight deck. Furthermore, if the vehicle deck below the hangar is not occupied, it may be used to store an additional 12 aircraft, with a maximum load of 30 medum size fixed/rotary wing aircraft being achievable, e.g theoretical aircraft carrier loadout of 18 x F-35B, 8 x MH-60R, 4 x EH-101 mod 112 AEW&C Helicopters.
    3. The “Adelaide’s” ? I assume you mean the Canberra class? HMAS Adelaide will be the 2nd Juan Carlos 1 class for the RAN behind HMAS Canberra. There has been no mention of mounting the Evolved Sea Sparrow SAM on the Canberra class or Juan Carlos as of yet, and neither the Spanish or Australian variant feature Close-In Weapon Systems such as the Mk.15 block 1B Phalanx, although there is space and weight provision for both. However, to install the Evolved Sea Sparrow on the ships, a missile illumination radar must be fitted as it is a semi-active radar homing missile that recquires terminal illumination for accurate guidance. The existing Saab 9LV Mk3E combat management system, Saab Sea Giraffe AMB multifunction surveillance radar used in conjunction with the Australian CEA-MOUNT X-band fixed active phased array missile illumination radar would be sufficient to cover the full performance envelope of the Evolved Sea Sparrow, perhaps with the addition of the Sagem Vampir NG Infra-Red Search & Track system chosen for the Hobart class to improve low-level target detection capability. The RAN has never used, or as far as i know been intertested in acquiring the Rolling Airframe Missile, and if they were in the market for such a weapon, they would likely wait for the development of the British Common Anti-Air Modular Missile as it could be used in the RAAF and possibly the Army as well.
    4. The Hobart class is not based on the Fridtjof Nansen, it is based on a slightly modified Navantia F-100 base design, known in Spanish Navy service as the ‘Alvaro De Bazan’. The Hobart class will feature minor Australian specific modifications such as extended range and improved capability to operate in cold southern waters over the Spanish variant, with its displacement increasing from 6,250 to 7,000 tonnes, however all other dimensions remain identical. The class will also include minor improvements Spain has implemented in later ships in the class.The Fridtjof Nansen is itself also based on the Navantia F-100, albeit it is designed for a different role and is therefore smaller in size (134 x 16.8m v 146.7m x 18.6m) and displacement (5,290t v 6,250t)

  43. JBRobbo permalink
    April 4, 2012 2:53 am

    It is clear that the vast majority of you know sweet fuck all about anything you’re talking about.

  44. March 4, 2012 5:05 pm

    Before or after someone uses an EMP weapon on the triggers of the torpedoes.

    Anyway, I was just browsing the internet and had an idea what about a UMV carrier keep them small like below 10,000 tons with the same engines as in a destroyer say an old Arliegh Burke class set up, and launch UMV’s from it. With the control center being the carrier, with armaments to defend itself mainly from Anti-air attacks, with a little surface capability.

    These are the stats that I think would work.
    Casablanca Class UMV Carrier
    Displacement :7,000 tons empty, 9,775 fully loaded
    Dimensions:
    length: 512.5 ft
    beam: 66.6 ft
    drought: 23 ft
    propulsion: Same as Arleigh Burke class
    Armament: 1*mk41 VLS for Evolved Sea Sparrow
    Missile load: 90
    2*RAM launchers
    1*MK13 launcher for Harpoon
    missile load: 24
    1*57mm cannon
    Aircraft: Unmanned Air Vechiles: 32
    Helicopters: 2 medium helicopters
    Capacity: 350 people

    What do you think???

  45. Kurt permalink
    December 18, 2011 12:21 pm

    @ M1

    You’re brilliant. May I, as humble overawed spectator, suggest some really fast rowing boats to achieve your tremendous world domination plan at a higher speed. Perhaps a spar torpedo each should be added to these glorious triremes on their march to victory.

  46. Kurt permalink
    December 18, 2011 12:17 pm

    @Kory McDonald
    It seems like Australia is doing the right thing since everything is right if I agree ;)

  47. November 28, 2011 6:57 pm

    The world is getting poorer, and more desperate, leading to increasing radicalisation, religious and political, so why bother with all this heavy hardware you can’t afford when your one true nation of God, Justice and the (insert name of your nation) Way of Life will Rule Supreme.

    Hurrah!

    Here then is the Kingdom of Heaven Kamikazi navy:-

    Take ten million volunteers on the path to rightous glory.
    Give each one a pair of flippers.
    Add stimulant drugs to survive the waters.
    And two limpet mines, one in each hand.
    Swim out to your enemy.
    Bang!

    If you’re rich enough you can add snorkels and swimsuits.

  48. Alexander permalink
    August 26, 2011 5:34 pm

    For Canada, here is my navy, based on the recent ship building program, with some additions.

    Destroyers/Frigates.

    Unless we pull a design of our own out of a hat I would license and build in Canada,

    15 De Zeven Provincien Destroyers, with some modifications, extended range being one. The Netherlands built these for 532 Million, my budget including missiles would be 1.3 billion each, I would use the 48 cell vls launcher.

    3 Berlin Class AOR’s.

    I would build 16 coastal patrol boats which speeds of up to 30+ knots, as opposed to the slower boats they have planned.

    Then aside from the icebreakers already planned I would add the following.

    6 Type 212 SSK to be built in Germany for ~600 million each. These include the AIP system which would be great in our northern waters.

    2 Juan Carlos (Spain) Class light carriers, to be built in Canada, with modifications, which could eventually operate F35B’s once the cost comes down. 1 billion dollars each.

    This would give Canada an excellant navy.

  49. Kory McDonald permalink
    May 26, 2011 1:20 am

    My Aussie fleet only cost $5.5 billion over ten years, since they are building the ships that I point out and each model would get cheaper as they produce them. With 6 Type 214′s and what I suggested is a slightly bigger fleet then they have now, with room to expand. The big fleet afterwards is a dream navy and there is no way that the Aussies could afford that one which costs about the same as the GDP of Europe.

  50. Heretic permalink
    May 25, 2011 9:01 am

    Trick question: what would your Dream RAN cost … and does Oz have the personnel to man it … and would the DMO not “manage” to screw it up royally (pun intended)?

  51. Kory McDonald permalink
    May 18, 2011 1:54 pm

    Okay, I have figured out how to build a navy that would clean the USA’s clock but if the people ever found out that we the people on this web zone. And at the time of this their is many of the people that cannot believe this the US Navy is not the best anymore.

    Carriers:
    15X Queen Elizabeth CV
    8X Vikrant Class CVL
    15X Avenger Class UMV (Unmanned Vehicle) Carrier

    Battle-cruisers: (yes, I know that this class is kind of a misnomer but I am using it as ships that are above twenty thousand tons and has no air capability)

    8X Arsenal Ships

    Cruisers:
    (none, due to that the arsenal ships take care of that)

    Destroyers:
    16X Takanami Class DDG
    16X Type 45 class
    12X DDG-1000 class
    12X Tourville Class DDG
    12X Hobart class DDG

    Frigates:
    25X Fridjof Nansen
    25X Type 26 frigates
    15X FREDA class
    15X MEKO A-200
    12X Formidable Class
    6X Condensed Arsenal ships

    Corvettes:
    7X K-130 class
    12X Visby Class
    11X Qahir class

    Amphibious Forces:
    8X America Class LHD
    6X Oosumi Class LPD
    3X Ocean LPH
    24X Kingston Class MCM
    12X Landsort Class MHC

    Submarines:
    8X Typhoon Class SSBN
    8X Seawolf SSN
    32X Type 214 SSK
    16X Type 212 SSK

    And enough replenishment forces to service the fleet of this size.

    Total Fleet:
    38 Carriers
    8 Battle-cruisers
    68 Destroyers
    98 Frigates
    53 Amphibious Force Ships
    64 Submarines.

    I know a force this size seems a little too powerful at this time in the world but I’ll tell you one thing no one is going to mess with you. The common phrase would be WTF did that come from.

  52. Kory McDonald permalink
    May 18, 2011 12:47 pm

    The Aussies really do not need much when it comes to what they do not have. They are building a new destroyer, frigate, LHC, and a new patrol vessel. They will have two small carriers based on the Juan Carlos Class (SP) the reason that it costs 2.5X the amount is due to that the copter is different then what is on the deck of the ship. The Spanish use the Augusta (sic) which is not what the Aussies use in the SH-60 Seahawk, and then there is the capability that the Juan does not have a air projection force in either Harrier or a F-35 variant that is on the table for them to pick up. The Adelaide class is supposed to be able to carry a dozen of either Harrier or the F-35. In essence the new class is a jeep carrier with amphibious abilities as well. Though there is few things like the Surface to Air missile employed on the new class of jeep carrier while the Juan Carlos only has a Phalanx, the Adelaide has both Sea Sparrow, and a place for a RAM (Rolling Air Frame) Missile launcher. The new Hobart class destroyer is based on the Fridjof Nansen from Norway, though again there is various weapons swaps a stretched hull and a couple new abilities.

    But to stimulate conversation here if I had the minister of Defenses ear I would suggest this to him about his new ship building program.

    Get another Adelaide going (from 2 to 3) and do what the RN does with their carriers and only have two activated at any one time with the third on quick reserve.

    Get the Hobart’s class, but up the count from 3 to 5; the new Type 26 frigates I would get 10 of them, and the type 27 frigates and get 5 of those. Then see if you can to get an America Class Light Carrier to further push our air projection force.

    With the frigates it is time to dispatch the Perry class frigate see if you can get someone else to see if they can get another seven to ten years out of them like New Zealand with that in the bank, see about getting some Trafalgar class from the UK and have a SSK on the boards in 2015 like the Type 214 from Germany.

  53. JBRobbo permalink
    April 27, 2011 4:59 am

    Cost and Range requirements considered, this would be my ideal Australian Navy post 2020

    * buy the only 3 ex-US Navy Ticonderoga class Aegis Cruisers fitted with Ballistic Missile Defence capability (USS Shiloh, Port Royal and Lake Erie) and also upgraded under the ‘Cruiser modernization program’. All four SPG-62 mechanically steered fire control radars’ may as well be uninstalled and replaced with Australian CEA-MOUNT fixed active phased array missile illuminator radar as the SM-6 Standard extended range active missile has active radar guidance, and the present CEA-MOUNT can handle the terminal illumination of up to 16 Evolved Sea Sparrow simultaneously. The 2 x mk45 mod 4 127mm guns and extended range guided munitions would provide serious gunfire support capability for forces ashore, the 122 mk41 VLS cells would be fitted with 64 x RIM-174 SM-6, 72 xRIM-162A Evolved Sea Sparrow (quad-packed), 16 x RGM-109 block IV Tactical Tomahawk, 16 x RIM-161 SM-3 and 8 x RUM-139D VLA-ER.

    * Scrap plans to participate in the ‘Type 26 future frigate’ program and instead order additional Hobart class (Spanish F-105 base design) Aegis Destroyers to replace Adelaide and ANZAC class Frigates. Assuming the 3 Ticonderoga class are bought relatively cheap, a total of 8 would likely be sufficient. As they would feature greater commonality with the Ticonderoga class, as they both feature the Aegis weapon system and SPY-1 radar, it would simplify maintenance and be easier to integrate co-operative engagement capability, which would be integral for ballistic missile defence operations and for exploiting the full capability of the 370km range SM-6 SAM. I would also install a 2nd mk.15 Phalanx block 1B CIWS above the bridge in the area originally intended for a 3rd SPG-62 radar for full CIWS coverage. In terms of sensor fitout being almost identical to the Ticonderoga class, it would also feature a very similar armament (SM-6, ESSM, Tomahawk, SM-3 and VLA-ER) albeit with less than half the mk41 VLS capacity (48-cells vs 122).

    * A fleet of atleast 20 Independence class Littoral Combat Ships to replace the Armidale class Patrol Boats, Huon class Minehunters and Leeuwin and Paluma class’ of hydrographic survey vessels. Although most should be similarly equipped with their US Navy counterparts (Sea-Giraffe AMB, mk.110 57mm gun, mk.15 Phalanx block 1B) atleast 8 in my opinion should be given a hull mounted sonar (Thales UMS4132 KingKlip for its compact size) and the Australian developed CEA-MOUNT fixed active phased array missile illuminator radar system. This would enable a small number of Evolved Sea Sparrow missiles to be installed (32 missiles in 2 x mk48/56 mod 1 ‘bulkhead’ VLS either side of the hangar) for greatly improved defence from anti-ship missiles, as well as deck-launched MU90 torpedoes to allow ASW capability without having to launch an MH-60R in response. Harpoon block II anti-ship missiles could also be installed directly behind the mk.110 57mm gun, and the mk.15 Phalanx block 1B CIWS on the hangar roof would also remain as well as manually operated M2 Browning 12.7mm machine guns.

    * 2 x Canberra class LHD’s (Spanish Juan Carlos 1 class) again fitted with the CEA-MOUNT radar and an 8-cell mk41 VLS for 32 x ESSM for greatly improved defence against anti-ship missiles, plus atleast two mk.15 block 1B Phalanx CIWS for backup. It should carry a mixed air-wing of F-35B Lightning II STO/VL Fighters, MH-60R Seahawk ASW helicopters, as well as Australian Army MRH-90 tactcial troop transport helicopters, CH-47F tactical airlift helicopters and Tiger ARH attack helicopters.

    *1 ex Royal Navy ‘Bay class’ LSD to fulfill the ‘strategic sealift ship’ requirement outlined in the Force 2030 white paper. Would also come fairly cheap as it is surplus to Royal Navy needs.

    * 12 x BMTDSL Vidar-36 large diesel-electric/AIP submarines. A new 3,600 tonne design concept with similar characteristics to the unique Collins class submarines they will replace in terms of size, speed, range and endurance, except with Air Independent Propulsion systems and greater modularity with a flexible ‘casette’ mission module system able to be used for deploying UUV’s or swimmer commando’s, for increased fuel capacity or for additional torpedoes and/or missiles. Combat systems should be based on the US Virginia class however to prevent another massively expensive headache encountered with the original Collins’ combat system (since replaced with a Virginia class derivative). Should also be able to launch the Tomahawk land attack missile.

    *4 x block III Virginia class nuclear attack submarines. – Considering Australia has one of the worlds largest coastlines, and an enormous expanse of ocean it must patrol, nuclear power makes perfect sense. The advantages nuclear-powered subs have over their conventional cousins such as virtually unlimited range and much higher transit speeds would allow the furthest away missions to be performed by the Virginia class, leaving more diesel submarines to patrol closer to the Australian mainland.

  54. Heretic permalink
    October 29, 2010 1:52 pm

    Leviathan Navy (USN Strategic Deterrence)
    12 SSBN-X @ $7000m = $84b
    60 Virgina class SSN @ $2400m = $144b
    12 Queen Elizabeth CV @ $3700m = $44.4b
    24 Arleigh Burke DDG @ $1800m = $43.2b
    36 Sea Fighter FSF-1 @ $200m = $7.2b
    12 Wave Knight T-AOE @ $172m = $2.064b
    = $324.864 billion (156 vessels)

    Amphibious Assault (USMC ready groups)
    48 Rotterdam class LPD @ $370m = $17.76b
    24 Joint High Speed Vessel @ $160m = $3.84b
    24 Logistic Support Vessel @ $32m = $0.768b
    24 Type 214 SSK @ $500m = $12b
    24 De Zeven Provinciën class Frigate @ $532m = $12.768b
    24 Sea Fighter FSF-1 @ $200m = $4.8b
    12 Lewis and Clark T-AKE @ $538m = $6.456b
    12 Wave Knight T-AOE @ $172m = $2.064b
    = $60.456 billion (192 vessels)

    Global Commons Patrol and Protection
    24 Holland class OPV @ $169m = $4.056b
    = $4.056 billion (24 vessels)

    Total Cost: $389.376 billion
    Average Cost: $13 billion per year for 30 years
    Total vessels: 372

    =====

    Strategic Nuclear Deterrent (x12)
    1 SSBN-X

    Submarine Warfare (x48)
    1 Virginia class SSN

    Carrier Battle Group (x12)
    1 Queen Elizabeth class CV
    2 Arleigh Burke class DDG
    3 Sea Fighter FSF-1
    1 Virginia class SSN

    Amphibious Ready Group (x12)
    4 Rotterdam class LPD
    2 Joint High Speed Vessel
    2 Logistics Support Vessel
    2 Type 214 SSK
    2 De Zeven Provinciën class Frigate
    2 Sea Fighter FSF-1
    1 T-AKE
    1 T-AOE

    Global Commons Patrol and Protection (x6)
    4 Holland class OPV

  55. D. E. Reddick permalink
    August 28, 2010 3:31 pm

    Heretic,
    B. Smitty,

    Kyle has a longer post with more links at his Japan Security Watch blog. Note that the post to which you are responding is actually part # 3 of a series by Kyle (links to the first two parts and other, related posts are included in this version of the post).

    Thoughts on a Japanese Marine Corps, #3: The MSDF

    http://japansw.wordpress.com/2010/08/25/thoughts-on-a-japanese-marine-corps-3-the-msdf/#comments

  56. B.Smitty (The Original) permalink
    August 27, 2010 5:43 pm

    I posted this response over at Kyle’s post.

    JHSVs aren’t amphibious assault ships. They are administrative lift ships. They require a port or JLOTS pier to offload.

    They are very useful for point-to-point troop and vehicle movements, but not as much in an expeditionary amphibious task force. Only being able to sustain troops at sea for 4 days greatly hinders their ability here.

    Also, the test vessels have been nicknamed “vomit commits” because they go real fast, but roll a lot in heavy seas. Not a good way to deliver your Marines fresh and ready to fight.

    IMHO, you need more traditional amphibious assault ships to carry the initial waves, and then you can use JHSVs to ferry follow on forces.

  57. Heretic permalink
    August 27, 2010 9:23 am

    Kyle Mizokami has an … interesting … idea for a Japanese Marine Corps. The fun part is that we can actually game out what whis would cost … and what it might mean if the USMC were to adopt a similar model for operations (I know, I know, not going to happen, but nevertheless useful for comparison of operational concepts).

    First, there’s the 22DDH, which according to GlobalSecurity.org is slated to cost 118.1 billion yen. Convert Yen to USD and you come up with a figure around $1.4 billion.

    Kyle goes on to posit a set of ships that looks like this:
    * 1 22DDH (helicopter element, task force headquarters, special forces, medical)
    * 4 JHSVs (1 for battalion headquarters company, 1 per line company)
    * 2 Osumi-class LSTs w/ 2 LCAC each (13 vehicle mechanized company + 4 vehicle tank platoon + recovery, engineering vehicles)

    Since there’s only 3 Osumi LSTs in service, and they were built in the 90s, it’s kinda hard to guesstimate costs for them … especially since the ships were a failure at their original design purpose and converted into “LST” for political purposes. Probably better all around to simply replace them with Rotterdam-class LHDs (for the purposes of this game here).

    So …

    One 22DDH @ $1400m = $1400m
    Four JHSV @ $160m = $640m
    Two Rotterdam-class LHD @ $370m = $740m

    Total: $2.78 billion for 7 ships

    No escorts in that, nor any fixed wing air cover … but it makes for a tidy amount of amphibious lift capacity.

  58. Chuck Hill permalink
    August 26, 2010 1:41 pm

    If we get the mine warfare mission modules for the LCS working I would presume that they would be usable from a wide variety of vessels, or even from shore in our own or friendly ports.

  59. B.Smitty (The Original) permalink
    August 26, 2010 10:13 am

    IMHO, there still needs to be some work on verifying a proper MCM CONOPS. Can remote systems take over completely? What about airborne MCM via the MH-60? Do we still need specialized MCM ships or can modular ships like the LCS carry the load?

    I have a feeling the answer will be that we need a suite of MCM capabilities, with high-end MCM specialists augmented by modular vessels.

  60. Chuck Hill permalink
    August 24, 2010 7:42 pm

    Heretic, I’m finding it hard to find costs for MCM ships. Doesn’t look any are being built right now. I did find what was supposed to be a 2010 price for the the MCM-1 Avenger that appeared believable, and posted that on the Warship price listing.

  61. Heretic permalink
    August 24, 2010 8:33 am

    re: Chuck Hill

    Mike’s list of Warships with Costs conspicuously omits MIW ships. There are no Avengers listed, for instance.

    Failing that, I’m thinking that Sea Fighters could be equipped with MIW modules. At the very least, I haven’t seen anything saying that the Sea Fighters couldn’t perform the MIW mission. That is of course different from saying that they would be “perfect” for the task.

  62. Chuck Hill permalink
    August 20, 2010 11:01 pm

    Heretic, how are you going to do mine warfare?

  63. Chuck Hill permalink
    August 19, 2010 8:18 pm

    I can’t help but think there are differences in accounting procedures. How much does it cost means different things to different people.

    It could mean how much are you paying the ship yard to build it.
    Could be ship yard plus government furnished equipment.
    Does it include spares?
    Training?
    Personnel costs for the Precommissioning detail?
    Personnel accommodations and travel for the crew prior to commissioning?
    Changes to the training facilities to accommodate the new equipment including simulators?

    All could be included in some accounting systems, excluded under others.

  64. B.Smitty permalink
    August 19, 2010 9:19 am

    Some of the difference can be attributed to splitting construction between Spanish and Australian yards, but I can’t imagine it’s that much.

  65. Heretic permalink
    August 19, 2010 9:09 am

    Yeah, that price differential is rather … suspicious. 2.5 Juan Carlos per 1 Canberra? What gives?

  66. B.Smitty permalink
    August 18, 2010 1:08 pm

    Heretic,

    I have a feeling (but no evidence) that the Juan Carlos price was sans combat systems. The Canberra’s aren’t THAT much different to warrant such a large price differential.

  67. Mike Burleson permalink*
    August 16, 2010 3:49 pm

    Heretic-Sure, no problem, as long as you’re OK with it.

  68. Heretic permalink
    August 16, 2010 12:14 pm

    re: Mike

    I am not in the slightest bit concerned with how fast you can get around to moderating my posts with all these links. I don’t mind if it takes you a few days to give the okay. You see, I don’t immediately and intimately know what all of these ship classes necessarily refer to just off the top of my head, so I like to have some sort of (external) reference to clarify, “okay this ship class is a WHAT?” Helps me keep everything straight, and I’d imagine it’s similarly useful for other laymen of the navy ships of the world.

    =========

    I *think* this is going to be my final evolution of this game, unless Mike adds a whole lot of new ships to the Warship Costs page. As promised in my last Fantasy Navy, this time I explore what happens if I swap out the Canberra LHD ($1.3b) for the Juan Carlos LHD ($490m) on a 1:1 basis. Damn, what a difference! In fact, it made so much of a difference that an entire cascade of apportionment changes could be implemented. As a result, I was actually able to add over 100 hulls to my fantasy Navy. That’s right, I went from a 362 hull navy, to a 475 hull navy!

    And it’s still priced at $15 billion per year for 30 years.

    So the first major change was swapping the Canberra LHDs for the Juan Carlos LHDs.
    The second change was reducing the SSBN-X buy from 14 to 12 … freeing up $14 billion.

    These two changes resulted in so much more cash to buy things that I actually bought another Ford class CVN and its complement of Arleigh Burkes and Sea Fighter escorts. That gives me 1 carrier every 4 years for 28 years.

    And I was *still* flush with leftover cash.

    So I increased the number of Amphibious Ready Groups from 18 to 21 … to maintain the 3:1 ratio with Carrier Battle Groups. I also added an extra JHSV and two Sea Fighters to each Amphibious Ready Group, increasing administrative lift capability and enhance ship-to-shore screening.

    And I still had a few billion dollars left over!

    So I increased the number of Ballistic Missile Defense patrol groups, and the number of Sealane Patrol and Protection groups up to 30 each, which ought to make deployment and crew rotations for these services much easier.

    And did I mention that I managed to squeeze over 450 hulls into a 30 year plan … while recapitalizing the entire submarine fleet (strategic and tactical), accelerating CVN construction from 1 per 5 years down to 1 per 4 years, accelerating SSN production to the more economical 2 boats per year schedule, managed to dramatically increase amphibious capability to enhance USMC capability but also provide Influence Squadrons for partnerships with foreign navies … AND … still had money left over to pay for BMD frigates for permanent at sea patrol rotations to defend friends and allies against rogue states … AND … still had money left over to buy plenty of OPVs to run down pirates and smugglers operating in the sea lanes of the global commons without resorting to overkill DDGs.

    Quite frankly, I’m simply astounded by what can be bought for a hi/low mix navy, if you’re willing to buy off the shelf for ships and weapons to fill out the low end navy (ie. not national security near peer deterrent ships and boats). And this mix has plenty of sealift capability, combined with a remarkable amount of flight deck space and hangars, resulting in a very distributed, yet also where necessary, concentrated, amount of air power which can be brought to bear against an extremely wide range of situations and scenarios.

    Collectively speaking, I’m astounded at just how capable this FLEET would be … even if not every ship in it is an uberalles wundership extraordinaire.

    =========

    Leviathan Warfare Navy
    12 SSBN-X @ $7000m = $84b
    60 Virgina class SSN @ $2400m = $144b
    7 Ford class CVN @ $9000m = $63b
    21 Arleigh Burke class DDG @ $1800m = $37.8b
    21 Sea Fighter FSF-1 @ $200m = $4.2b
    Total: $333 billion
    Hulls: 121

    Amphibious Assault
    42 Juan Carlos class LHD @ $490m = $20.58b
    42 Joint High Speed Vessel @ $160m = $6.72b
    42 Logistic Support Vessel @ $32m = $1.344b
    42 Type 214 SSK @ $500m = $21b
    42 De Zeven Provinciën class Frigate @ $532m = $22.344b
    42 Sea Fighter FSF-1 @ $200m = $8.4b
    21 Lewis and Clark T-AKE @ $538m = $11.298b
    21 Wave Knight T-AOE @ $172m = $3.612b
    Total: $95.298 billion
    Hulls: 294

    Sea-based Ballistic Missile Defense
    30 De Zeven Provinciën class Frigate @ $532m = $15.96b
    Total: $15.96 billion
    Hulls: 30

    Sealane Patrol and Protection
    30 Holland class OPV @ $169m = $5.07b
    Total: $5.07 billion
    Hulls: 30

    Total Cost: $449.328 billion over 30 years ($14.98b per year)
    Total Hulls: 475

    =====

    Strategic Nuclear Deterrent (x12)
    1 SSBN-X

    Submarine Warfare (x46)
    1 Virginia class SSN

    Carrier Battle Group (x7)
    1 Ford class CVN
    3 Arleigh Burke class DDG
    3 Sea Fighter FSF-1
    2 Virginia class SSN

    Amphibious Ready Group (x21)
    2 Juan Carlos class LHD
    2 Logistics Support Vessel
    2 Joint High Speed Vessel
    2 Type 214 SSK
    2 De Zeven Provinciën class Frigate
    2 Sea Fighter FSF-1
    1 T-AKE
    1 T-AOE

    Sea Based Ballistic Missile Defense (x15)
    2 De Zeven Provinciën class Frigate

    Sealane Patrol and Protection (x15)
    2 Holland class OPV

  69. Mike Burleson permalink*
    August 14, 2010 11:53 am

    Heretic-Just a suggestion but the addition of numerous links in your posts causes them to get hung up in the “approve file”, and sometimes takes me a while to notice it. Without excessive links it would go right to post.

  70. Heretic permalink
    August 13, 2010 5:18 pm

    Yet more variation on the exact same theme as the last two “navies” below.

    Major difference in this plan is exchanging the Wasp class LHD + Rotterdam class LPD in favor of a pair of Canberra class LHDs … which would (in tandem) make for better STOVL platforms than the Wasp class. Ironically, if I switched from Canberra class ($1.3b) to Juan Carlos class ($490m) I’d be able to, according to Mike’s Warship Costs, afford a heck of a lot more Amphibious Assault groups!

    ==========

    Leviathan Warfare Navy
    14 SSBN-X @ $7000m = $98b
    60 Virgina class SSN @ $2400m = $144b
    6 Ford class CVN @ $9000m = $54b
    18 Arleigh Burke class DDG @ $1800m = $32.4b
    18 Sea Fighter FSF-1 @ $200m = $3.6b
    Total: $332 billion
    Hulls: 116

    Amphibious Assault
    36 Canberra class LHD @ $1300m = $46.8b
    36 Logistic Support Vessel @ $32m = $1.152b
    36 Type 214 SSK @ $500m = $18b
    36 De Zeven Provinciën class Frigate @ $532m = $19.152b
    18 Joint High Speed Vessel @ $160m = $2.88b
    18 Lewis and Clark T-AKE @ $538m = $9.684b
    18 Wave Knight T-AOE @ $172m = $3.096
    Total: $100.764 billion
    Hulls: 198

    Sea-based Ballistic Missile Defense
    24 De Zeven Provinciën class Frigate @ $532m = $12.768b
    Total: $12.768 billion
    Hulls: 24

    Sealane Patrol and Protection
    24 Holland class OPV @ $169m = $4.056b
    Total: $4.056 billion
    Hulls: 24

    Total Cost: $449.588 billion over 30 years ($14.99b per year)
    Total Hulls: 362

    =====

    Strategic Nuclear Deterrent (x14)
    1 SSBN-X

    Submarine Warfare (x48)
    1 Virginia class SSN

    Carrier Battle Group (x6)
    1 Ford class CVN
    3 Arleigh Burke class DDG
    3 Sea Fighter FSF-1
    2 Virginia class SSN

    Amphibious Ready Group (x18)
    2 Canberra class LHD
    2 Logistics Support Vessel

  71. Heretic permalink
    August 11, 2010 5:47 pm

    I was curious …

    … what would happen if I took the previous Navy proposal … cut the Amphibious Assault fleet by 1/3rd and added in the Zumwalt DDG 1000. What would happen? Would the DDG 1000 suddenly “be worth it?” (or words to that effect). Seems to me to be an awful lot of money to pay for 1200+ rounds of 155mm artillery for over the horizon NGFS. Have a look …

    ==========

    Leviathan Warfare Navy
    14 SSBN-X @ $7000m = $98b
    60 Virgina class SSN @ $2400m = $144b
    6 Ford class CVN @ $9000m = $54b
    18 Arleigh Burke class DDG @ $1800m = $32.4b
    18 Sea Fighter FSF-1 @ $200m = $3.6b
    Total: $332 billion
    Hulls: 116

    Amphibious Assault
    12 Zumwalt DDG 1000 @ $6000m = $72b
    12 Wasp class LHD @ $2200m = $26.4b
    12 Rotterdam class LPD @ $370m = $4.44b
    12 Joint High Speed Vessel @ $160m = $1.92b
    24 Type 214 SSK @ $500m = $12b
    24 De Zeven Provincien Frigate @ $532m = $12.768b
    24 Logistic Support Vessel @ $32m = $0.768b
    12 Lewis and Clark T-AKE @ $538m = $6.456b
    12 Wave Knight T-AOE @ $172m = $2.064
    Total: $138.816 billion
    Hulls: 144

    Sea-based Ballistic Missile Defense
    24 De Zeven Provincien Frigates @ $532m = $12.768b
    Total: $12.768 billion
    Hulls: 24

    Sealane Patrol and Protection
    24 Holland class OPV @ $169m = $4.056b
    Total: $4.056 billion
    Hulls: 24

    Total Cost: $487.64 billion over 30 years ($16.255b per year)
    Total Hulls: 308

    ==========

    I’m thinking the USN needs to find a cheaper hull to use as a single role NGFS armed with the 155mm AGS instead of the “do it all” DDG 1000.

  72. Heretic permalink
    August 10, 2010 5:35 pm

    Leviathan Warfare Navy
    14 SSBN-X @ $7000m = $98b
    60 Virgina class SSN @ $2400m = $144b
    6 Ford class CVN @ $9000m = $54b
    18 Arleigh Burke class DDG @ $1800m = $32.4b
    18 Sea Fighter FSF-1 @ $200m = $3.6b
    Total: $332 billion
    Hulls: 116

    Amphibious Assault
    18 Wasp class LHD @ $2200m = $39.6b
    18 Rotterdam class LPD @ $370m = $6.66b
    18 Joint High Speed Vessel @ $160m = $2.88b
    36 Type 214 SSK @ $500m = $18b
    36 De Zeven Provincien Frigate @ $532m = $19.152b
    36 Logistic Support Vessel @ $32m = $1.152b
    18 Lewis and Clark T-AKE @ $538m = $9.684b
    18 Wave Knight T-AOE @ $172m = $3.096
    Total: $100.224 billion
    Hulls: 198

    Sea-based Ballistic Missile Defense
    24 De Zeven Provincien Frigates @ $532m = $12.768b
    Total: $12.768 billion
    Hulls: 24

    Sealane Patrol and Protection
    24 Holland class OPV @ $169m = $4.056b
    Total: $4.056 billion
    Hulls: 24

    Total Cost: $449.048 billion over 30 years ($14.97b per year)
    Total Hulls: 362

    ===========

    1 CVN per 5 years for 30 years
    2 SSN per year for 30 years
    3 Amphibious Ready Groups per Carrier Battle Group

    ~12 hulls per year for 30 years
    Submarine force completely recapitalized with 110 SSBN, SSN and SSK hulls (~30% of all hulls built)

  73. Al L. permalink
    August 5, 2010 8:38 pm

    Fencer:
    I posted a much longer description of my Navy in this thread on July 25th. Here is the info from that posting.

    CSS: existing & new build T-AKEs, and derivatives of the T-AKE hull.

    PC: A derived “parent craft” design perhaps a Sentinel lengthened to accommodate a 11m RHIB and/or a modular rear deck to interchangeably mount a gun or Scan Eagle launcher or maybe even an NLOS box over the boat ramp.

    8 -FPF (Forward Presence Force): 1 CSV (Carrier Sto-Vl), 2 DDG, 2 CSS (Combat Support Ships), 3 LCS-2, 1 LPD-17 or LSD-X, 1 SSN (requires 8ea CSV, 8ea LPD or LSD; 14 DDG, 14 CSS, 21 LCS-2, 7 SSN)

    8-CAG (Carrier Action Group): 1 CVN, 1 DDG (requires 8 CVN, 7 DDG)

    8-ESG: 1 LHD, 1 LPD, 1 LSD-X, 1 DDG, 1 SSN, 1 CSS, 1-LCS (requires 8ea LHD, LPD, LSD; 7 ea other ships)

    Support ships is a generic category, necessary because the ship building budget covers more than combatants. CBO says it includes command ships, logistics ships, salvage ships, ocean
    tugs, surveillance ships, and tenders. I estimated an average ship based on those ship types.

    A modular littoral action group capability would be added at the low end. The core of this would be groups of 4-6 PCs operating with LCSs, JHSVs, FFGs and support ships depending on the circumstances. 1 or 2 Flo/Flo ships would be dedicated to moving the PCs overseas. These groups would focus on training and cooperative engagement with allied nations who lack adequate maritime security capabilities. In the hybrid or coin conflict they can be available as needed for green to brown water ops. They could also supplement the Coast Guard. The PCs would be readily sold or given to allies .

  74. Fencer permalink
    August 5, 2010 12:02 pm

    Al L.,
    Looks like a good fleet, but I have three questions: could you clarify what the CSS and the Support Ships are, why do you want 42 PC (Cyclone?), and could you include what a CSG / ESG would look like?

  75. Al L. permalink
    August 5, 2010 4:30 am

    I am reposting the Navy budget I described in prior comments. The comment software chewed up my table. I have a hard time reading my budget table in my own post so I’ll just post it as plain text.

    My Navy Budget 2012-2042 fiscal years.

    I assume $15 billion per year for 30 years = 450 billion 2010 dollars.

    I have accounted for ships that are funded through the FY2011 budget.

    All funded ships that will exist in 2040 are listed as “existing”. Ships that would be funded FY2012-FY2042 are listed as “build”. All monetary figures are in billions of 2010 dollars.

    8 x CSV(Carrier Sto/Vl) Existing:1 Build:7 Cost ea:$3.8 total:$26.6

    8 X CVN Existing:8 Build:0 Cost ea:0 Total:$19.0 (see note 1)

    8 x LHD Existing:2 Build:6 Cost ea:$2.0 Total:$12.0

    14 x FFG Existing:0 Build:14 Cost ea:$1.33 Total:$18.6

    52 x DDG Existing:21 Build:31 Cost ea:$2.1 Total:$65.1

    32 x CSS(Combat Support Ship) Existing:13 Build:19 Cost ea:$0.6 Total:$11.4

    60 x LCS Existing:4 Build:56+12replacements
    Cost ea:56x$0.56+12x$0.7 Total:$39.8

    14 x LSD Existing:0 Build:14 Cost ea:$0.95 Total:$13.3

    60 x SSN Existing:14 Build:46 Cost ea:$2.9 Total:$133.4

    34 x JHSV Existing:3 Build:31+7replacements Cost ea:$0.2 Total:$7.6

    10 x LPD Existing:10 Build:0 Cost ea:0 Total:$0

    10 x SSBN Existing;0 Build:10 Cost ea:$8.2 Total:$82.0

    42 x PC Existing:0 Build:42+42replacements Cost ea:$0.07 Total:$5.9

    3 x DDG-1000 Existing:3 Build:0 Cost ea:0 Total:$3.0 (note 2)

    48 x Support Ship Existing:0 Build:48 Cost ea;$0.25 avg. Total: $12.0

    TOTALS:
    311 Combatant ships
    42 Patrol craft
    48 Support ships
    24 Flat decks
    283 Surface combatants
    70 Submarines
    40 Amphibious ships

    401 total ships in fleet plus 61 replacements for $449.66 billion over 30 years or 14.99/ year

    Notes:
    (1) CVN -78 is “fully funded” but only to about 9 billion, I included 5 billion to finish it, + 14 billion for midlife refueling of 7 Nimitz class
    (2) DDG-1000 class is supposedly fully funded for 3 ships but I can’t believe the budget will hold so I included 3 billion to finish.

  76. Fencer permalink
    August 2, 2010 12:27 pm

    B.Smitty,
    I read a 1990s CBO or GAO report that said conventional carriers had lower life cycle costs and nuclear carriers only offered marginal improvements in speed. But under CGN(X) on Global Security it seems to say that, because of the rising price of oil, nuclear power is now cheaper for ships over 25,000 tons.

    Airpower has already proven effective in the smallest packet possible; on two occasions during Operation Praying Mantis a single A-6 crippled an Iranian warship. The main reason I don’t want to go below 75,000 tons is I want to keep the option of being able to operate extremely high performance 5th and 6th generation fighters.

    Remember, I’m imagining something that looks like Sea Fighter but carries 36 ESSM, a MH-60, and a sonar suit. So it’s primary purpose is actually ASW, not fighting pirates and Iranian boat swarms. The reason I like them for this is that I think their small size and high speed would help protect them against hostile submarines.

    My opinion is that warships should stay away from the littorals whenever possible. Look at the Royal Navy in WWI; Jellico positioned the Grand Fleet as far from the German coast as possible and took very few losses (I think 1 battleship and 3 cruisers), but in the assault on the Dardanelles the British lost multiple pre-dreadnoughts to some mines and a handful of field artillery pieces.

  77. B.Smitty permalink
    August 2, 2010 8:13 am

    Fencer,

    On one hand I like the larger CV. It could carry a CVN-sized airwing. Three cats provides greater redundancy, throughput and flexibility. Along the same lines, I would really like to know if a conventional Ford class is feasible and how much such a vessel would cost.

    On the other hand. I think in the coming years carrier-based airpower will prove valuable even in smaller packets. 12 UCLASS configured with maritime search radars could blanket the Gulf of Aden region with sensor coverage in a way that even many dozens of Mike’s patrol boats couldn’t. 24 UCLASS/UCAVs could provide numerous persistent orbits in Afghanistan.

    Having 15 CVBGs in your navy would permit using some this way, however they would be overkill off the Gulf of Aden.

    Of course there’s nothing saying a larger carrier couldn’t carry a smaller airwing. They just impose a higher overhead to do so.

    Interestingly, even BMD may become a carrier mission with NCADE and air-launched PAC-3. The “world’s best modular warship” just keeps getting better.

    I think there is a role for something like Sea Fighter. I just don’t know if we need it in such large numbers. In a conflict with China, we will need convoy escorts with blue water ASW systems and useful AAW suites. What is the CONOPS for Sea Fighter in this situation?

    I could see using something like Sea Fighter to deploy a wide-area sensor net like the cancelled ADS. I could also see value in having them in the Persian Gulf/Straight of Hormuz region.

    Though in both situations I would rather have an enlarged ~1000 ton SES based on Skjold. It’s primary defense in these tight regions would be very low signature in addition to high speed. Skjold and Visby have that, Sea Fighter doesn’t. Of course Sea Fighter exists, a 1000 ton Skjold doesn’t.

  78. Fencer permalink
    August 1, 2010 8:02 pm

    B.Smitty,
    Here’re the stats on the carrier:
    CV
    75,000 tons
    3 catapults, 3 elevators
    ESSM, RAM, Phalanx

    I haven’t decide what type of power plant should be used.

    CLF ships are assumed to come from a separate budget, though I have been pondering a nuclear powered AOE that would probably need to come from the regular budget.

    As I already said, I’m not entirely sure about the Sea Fighters either but they offer a few more hulls at a lower price and having a fast, shallow-draft ship might prove useful.

    The way I look at it the LSVs offer cheap lift for D-Day type landings and major humanitarian missions while the LPHs alone could be used for fast raids.

  79. B.Smitty permalink
    August 1, 2010 5:08 pm

    Fencer,

    What type of CV are you talking about at $5.5 billion each? Conventional Ford? Upgraded QE/PA2?

    Are you considering CLF ships outside the budget?

    “Littoral” is the new fad, IMHO. Just as important (if not more) is countering the Chinese burgeoning A2/AD network. Will Sea Fighters really contribute that much in this situation? I’m not convinced they will.

    I’m not a fan of LSVs in ARGs due to their lack of speed to keep up with the rest of the group. I think it IS important that the entire group be able to sail at ~20kts.

    Heretic,

    Even if you can maintain 3 ARGs forward deployed constantly, they may not be deployed to the right place! A crisis may force even a forward deployed ARG to transit significant distances. Are you going to detach escorts to remain behind with the pokey LSVs when this happens?

  80. Fencer permalink
    August 1, 2010 4:09 pm

    I think this fleet would offer flexibility and affordability while providing the same (or better) capability. Only two of the ships on here are real ships and while I tried to base the others off real designs I do want a second opinion on the prices/feasibility. I’m not entirely sure if the corvettes are the best buy; the alternative is 70 Nansen-like frigates for $1.2 billion a year but it looks like the US Navy wants ships for the littorals.

    cost life span price per year
    15x CV 5.5 45 $1.87 billion

    26x CG 2.6 35 $1.95 billion
    56x DE 1.0 35 $1.60 billion
    75x FL 0.3 25 $0.90 billion

    14x SSBN 7.0 40 $2.45 billion
    60x SSN 2.4 30 $4.80 billion

    18x LPH 1.0 35 $0.52 billion
    27x LPD 0.5 35 $0.39 billion
    45x LSV 0.04 30 $0.06 billion

    TOTAL SHIPS: 336
    TOTAL BUDGET: $14.54 billion

    15 Carrier Strike Groups
    1x CV
    1x CG
    2x DE
    3x FL
    2x SSN

    9 Expeditionary Strike Groups
    2x LPH
    3x LPD
    5x LSV
    2x DE
    2x FL

    CG $2.6 billion
    similar to the large ship in the SC-21 artwork
    14,000 tons
    250 crew
    140x MK 57 VLS
    2x 8″ guns
    6x SVTT
    2x RAM, 2x Phalanx
    2 medium helos

    DE $1.0 billion
    similar to F100-class
    7,000 tons
    200 crew
    48x MK 57 VLS
    1x 8″ gun
    6x SVTT
    2x RAM, 2x Phalanx
    1 medium helo

    FL $0.3 billion
    similar to Sea Fighter-class
    1,000 tons
    50 crew
    1x Mk 48 Mod 2 VLS
    6x SVTT
    2x SeaRAM
    1 medium helo

    LPH $1.0 billion
    similar to Ocean-class
    25,000 tons
    400 crew
    1x Mk 48 Mod 2 VLS
    2x RAM, 2x Phalanx
    8 heavy helos, 4 medium helos
    900 soldiers

    LPD $0.5 billion
    Similar to Rotterdam-class
    18,500 tons
    crew 125
    1x Mk 48 Mod 2 VLS
    2x RAM, 2x Phalanx
    8 medium helos
    550 soldiers
    170 APC

    LSV $40 million
    General Besson-class
    4,700 tons
    crew 29

  81. B.Smitty permalink
    August 1, 2010 12:33 pm

    Fencer said, “The MEKO A-200 carries 16 Umkhonto SAMs with a range of 6.5 nm, Absalon carries 36 ESSM with a range of 27 nm, why do you think the MEKO is the better AAW ship? And still, what role does Sea Fighter preform that one of the other two ships couldn’t?

    Neither are good AAW ships. Your 32-cell Nansen would be much better. It can carry SM-2 and has a PESA radar w/AEGIS.

    I could see using FSF-1 to carry a littoral ASW or MIW module. Essentially an LCS-lite.

    Fencer said, “So the Sealane Patrol Groups are for peacetime patrolling? I had imagined them functioning as convoy escorts with the Type 214s providing additional ASW.

    SSKs make poor ASW escorts. They can’t keep up with the ships they are escorting.

  82. B.Smitty permalink
    August 1, 2010 12:17 pm

    Heretic,

    IIRC, a RIVRON normally has a mixture of around 16 boats and ~200 personnel. Will they be carried on the aviation LSV?

    IMHO, Stiletto is way too big to be a good riverine boat, and is a marginal patrol vessel.

  83. Fencer permalink
    August 1, 2010 12:15 pm

    Heretic,
    I never said Sea Fighter would slow down a CSG.

    The MEKO A-200 carries 16 Umkhonto SAMs with a range of 6.5 nm, Absalon carries 36 ESSM with a range of 27 nm, why do you think the MEKO is the better AAW ship? And still, what role does Sea Fighter preform that one of the other two ships couldn’t?

    So the Sealane Patrol Groups are for peacetime patrolling? I had imagined them functioning as convoy escorts with the Type 214s providing additional ASW.

  84. Heretic permalink
    August 1, 2010 9:55 am

    re: Fencer

    Heretic, why use Sea Fighter, MEKO, and Absalon? It seems that they’re all filling fairly similar roles so wouldn’t it be easier just to choose one design? Also why the one Type 214 in the Sealane Patrol Groups? It seems to me all it would do is slow down the Absalons.

    Sea Fighter is perfectly capable of sailing at up to 50 knots. This will not slow down a Carrier Battle Group when they want to sail at 30+ knots.

    The MEKO is primarily an air defense frigate, but it also has room to grow. I placed it in the Amphibious Ready Groups where it is to be used as air defense. So far as I’ve been able to find so far, the MEKO A-200 does not have small boat launch facilities and is therefore (as far as I’ve been able to research) designed to be an escort.

    The Absalon carries two helicopters and more than one launchable small boat. Absalons also carry plenty of Stanflex space to configure them for mission needs. This makes them ideal patrol frigates for missions such as anti-piracy in the Gulf of Aden as well as anti-narcotics patrols in the Caribbean Sea, Gulf of Mexico and Pacific Ocean side of Latin America (among other places). When conducting VBSS operations where you anticipate numerous interactions with the population of the sea while on patrol, the Absalon seems to be extremely well equipped (for the price) to performing these duties.

    The Type 214 would “slow down” the Absalons only if it is operating as an escort for the Absalons. However, if the Type 214 is operating as a Lone Wolf patrolling the sea lane along with the Absalons … that’s different now, isn’t it. The Absalons and the Type 214 could very well coordinate with each other, but not necessarily be joined at the keel (so to speak).

    =====

    re: B.Smitty

    A riverine patrol squadron with only two (rather poor) patrol craft? Or do you intend to carry small craft on the Bensons as well?

    Actually, one of the LSVs carries the two M80 Stiletto (they’ll fit on a flooded cargo deck) over the long haul and acts as a floating base for them. This then lets you deploy the Riverine Squadron abroad without requiring a local land base. Each M80 Stiletto can carry 12 special forces troops and can launch its own RHIB.

    The other LSV has helicopter hangar/support/facilities so as to give the M80s and their RHIBs rotary wing support and air cover for their riverine operations, dramatically enhancing their situational awareness and effectiveness.

    1 LSV –> 2 M80 Stiletto ( –> 2 RHIB )

    Your amphibious group will be stuck transiting at <12kts if the LSVs and SSKs are going to keep up over any significant distance.

    If they’re all in convoy together the whole way, this is true. But is a pure convoy configuration the only possible way to deploy? Will it always be necessary to sail at a max speed of 20 knots across an entire ocean, in convoy, absent a crisis? I’d argue that such questions oversimplify things too much.

    After all, with 16 Amphibious Ready Groups, you can put everything on a (roughly) 4-cycle duty rotation:
    On station
    In Transit
    In Training
    Replenish, Maintain and Repair

    That then gives you at least 4 Amphibious Ready Groups able to be constantly forward deployed at all times. Adjust your strategic needs so as to only need 3 Amphibious Ready Groups forward deployed On Station and you’ll have plenty of “elastic” built into the rotations to sustain each of those ARGs indefinitely without wearing out your crews.

    And if you can maintain 3 ARGs forward deployed at all times, then you aren’t going to NEED to rush at 20 knots all the time to get where you’re going … because you’re merely the relief in a rotation (during peacetime!) rather than responding to an immediate crisis. And if there’s no “rush” to get where you’re going, 12 knots of convoy speed and wargames training time will often be better for a variety of reasons … both in economical and life cycle cost for all sorts of engineering.

  85. Fencer permalink
    July 31, 2010 10:59 pm

    B.Smitty,
    I googled the US Navy budget and it appears that the MSC’s ships come from the “National Defense Sealift Fund” (currently $935 million but includes items other than shipbuilding); which while part of the Navy’s budget is separate from “Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy” ($15.725 billion).

    Just consider all the Darings in my fleet F100s than.

  86. B.Smitty permalink
    July 31, 2010 9:07 pm

    Fencer,

    F100s definitely have strike-length cells. Spain is planning to buy Tomahawks for their F100s.

    I left room for 8 SSBNs at $4.5 billion each in my budget. If they end up costing $7 billion each, the extra money will have to come from somewhere else.

    In all honesty, I’m not 100% sure the MSC is funded through the same budget as the rest of the Navy. I just assumed they were. Hopefully Leesea will chime in.

    I used 30 years for surface combatants and 25 years for SSNs mostly because that’s what the New Navy Fighting Machine NPS paper did.

  87. Fencer permalink
    July 31, 2010 4:41 pm

    B.Smitty,
    Actually I just forgot about the SSBNs. However, it appears to me that a separate budget would be the best solution if they cost anywhere near $7 billion apiece.

    I didn’t know the MSC was part of the Navy’s budget.

    I used a service life of 35 years for surface combatants and 33 years for submarines. Do you think that the increased maintenance cost of these longer service lives would end up being more expensive in the long run?

    The Darings have better range and a smaller crew than the F100s but I really don’t have an opinion between the two. The use of AEGIS would be beneficial but it looks like the F100s might use the Mk 41 tactical length VLS which is incapable firing the SM-2ER.

    Thanks for your thoughts.

  88. Hudson permalink
    July 31, 2010 1:40 pm

    Heretic,

    If the object of the game is to put the largest number of hulls in the water of various types, i.e., not all patrol boats, then your navy, at 409 hulls, takes the cake. It could defeat all the rest of the world’s fleets combined, by rough guess.

    However, realistically, your armada is unaffordable. Your 8 Fords and 16 LHD’s, fully equipped and manned (and womaned), would eat up a big chunk of the Navy’s operational budget in themselves, by rough guess.

    The Pre-Quad Review emphasizes the increasing cost of health care as an important consideration. You are not planning on staffing your navy with slaves with no benefits, are you? I’m sure you’re not. But still…

  89. B.Smitty permalink
    July 31, 2010 12:58 pm

    Fencer,

    I made up your navy using my SCN/yr spreadsheet. It takes into account service life.

    http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AiVQu4lA4SjvdEdEV1dQVE1KOHpPNFUzNDJZUHQtY2c&authkey=CIjU5rYE&hl=en#gid=10

    You have a large amphibious force, but they won’t have anywhere near the throughput of larger MSC transports. This will be a major hindrance in any protracted conflict.

    I left the New Navy Fighting Machine’s 125 “Deliver & Sustain” ships in my other navy variants for that purpose.

    I’m also not real crazy about the Darings. If you want a smaller DDG, my preference would be for the F100. It uses SPY-1D/AEGIS/SM-2, just like the Burkes, so there would be commonality.

  90. B.Smitty permalink
    July 31, 2010 11:43 am

    Heretic,

    A riverine patrol squadron with only two (rather poor) patrol craft? Or do you intend to carry small craft on the Bensons as well?

    Your amphibious group will be stuck transiting at <12kts if the LSVs and SSKs are going to keep up over any significant distance.

    Fencer,

    Are you expecting SSBNs to be paid for outside your budget?

  91. Fencer permalink
    July 31, 2010 11:01 am

    Heretic, why use Sea Fighter, MEKO, and Absalon? It seems that they’re all filling fairly similar roles so wouldn’t it be easier just to choose one design? Also why the one Type 214 in the Sealane Patrol Groups? It seems to me all it would do is slow down the Absalons.

  92. Heretic permalink
    July 30, 2010 5:32 pm

    Carrier Strike Group (30+ knot speed)

    1 Ford class CVN @ $9000m = $9000m
    4 Arleigh Burke Flight III DDG @ $1800m = $7200m
    2 Sea Fighter FSF-1 @ $200m = $400m
    2 Virginia SSN @ $2400m = $4800m

    Total: $21,400m for 9 hulls

    =====

    Amphibious Ready Group (12-20 knot speed)

    1 Wasp class LHD @ $2200m = $2200
    1 Rotterdam class LPD @ $370m = $370m
    1 JHSV @ $160m = $160m
    2 General Frank S. Besson, Jr. class LSV (Cargo variant) @ $32m = $64m
    2 MEKO A-200 class Frigate @ $327m = $654m
    2 Type 214 SSK @ $500m = $1000m
    1 T-AKE @ $285m = $285m

    Total: $4733m for 10 hulls

    =====

    Sealane Patrol Groups

    2 Absalon class Frigate @ $269m = $538m
    1 Type 214 SSK = $500m

    Total: $1038m for 3 hulls

    =====

    Riverine Patrol Squadron

    1 General Frank S. Besson, Jr. class LSV (Helicopter variant) @ $40m = $40m
    1 General Frank S. Besson, Jr. class LSV (Well Deck variant) @ $40m = $40m
    2 M80 Stiletto @ $10m = $20m

    Total: $100m for 4 hulls

    ==========

    30 year procurement plan:

    8 Carrier Strike Groups @ $21.4b = $171.200b for 72 hulls
    16 Amphibious Ready Groups @ $4.733b = $75.728b for 160 hulls
    24 Sealane Patrol Groups @ $1.038b = $24.912b for 72 hulls
    16 Riverine Patrol Squadrons @ $0.1b = $1.600b for 64 hulls
    12 Ohio SSBN Replacements @ $7.0b = $84.000b for 12 hulls
    26 Virginia class SSN (additional) @ $2.4b = $62.400b for 26 hulls
    3 Knud Rasmussen OPC (icebreakers) @ $50m = $0.15b for 3 hulls

    Total Cost: $419.990 billion over 30 years = $14 billion per year
    Total Hulls: 409

    Hulls by type:

    8 Ford class CVN
    32 Arleigh Burke Flight III DDG
    32 MEKO A-200 Frigate
    48 Absalon Frigate
    16 Sea Fighter FSF-1
    3 Knud Rasmussen OPC
    16 Wasp class LHD
    16 Rotterdam class LPD
    16 T-AKE
    16 JHSV
    64 General Frank S. Besson, Jr. class LSV
    32 M80 Stiletto
    56 Type 214 SSK
    42 Virginia class SSN
    12 Ohio SSBN Replacements

  93. Heretic permalink
    July 29, 2010 9:31 am

    My understanding, from multiple sources which I can’t cite at the moment, is that the Virgina SSNs cost around $2.5-3 billion each if you’re just buy one per year, but cost $2-2.5 billion each if you’re buying two per year. That’s because it’s more efficient for the yards to build more than one boat at a time so as to keep the work flowing and all their employees and suppliers running smoothly. That’s why there was a “2 for 4″ push (at one time) in the Pentagon to get Congress to fund building two Virginias per year so as to get more bang for buck on the class of boats. Costs more up front, but you wind up saving quite a lot over time because you can (ultimately) build the boats for less money.

    Unfortunately, Congress decided to “save” money by building fewer boats, thereby driving up the cost of every boat because they were being built in singles, rather than in doubles. Thus we get 2 boats for $6 billion instead of 3 boats for $6 billion as a way to “save” money.

  94. Fencer permalink
    July 28, 2010 1:27 pm

    B. Smitty, yes the $66 billion is a typo it should read 66 for $158.4 billion ($2.4 billion each), the total cost of the fleet is correct however.

  95. Hudson permalink
    July 28, 2010 1:21 pm

    Al L.,

    Re: Your comments re Heretic re AIP subs:

    The way to look at D/E boats is not sprint speed to distant parts of the globe vs. an SSN. The hare will beat the tortoise. The D/Es augment your fast nuke boats. This means you can keep your AIPs on patrol, to and from Taiwan, if you like. Or in my fictional fleet, they patrol the Americas, so there is always one or more in the Gulf of M, or the Carrib. or S. Atlantic–so if Chavez invades Columbia, say, I have the start of a naval blockade right away. They are cost effective. That’s my idea, anyway.

  96. B.Smitty permalink
    July 28, 2010 11:33 am

    Fencer,

    I think 66 Virginias for $66 billion is too low. Most estimates put them between $2 and $2.5 billion each. I used $2.5 billion to account for upgrades. Also, I only used a 25 year service life, so I had to buy more to keep a constant force strength over 30 years.

  97. Fencer permalink
    July 28, 2010 12:09 am

    Not my ideal US Navy but of an exercise to see how big of a fleet can be bought for $15 billion a year over 30 years without resorting to cheap patrol boats to boost numbers. While I actually came out $1.5 billion a year under budget, even though I rounded up many of the prices, it felt pointless to add even more ships. I sort of see this as being a starting point from which more capable vessels could be added and numbers be reduced. One major point I noticed with this fleet is that while gaining more hulls, helicopters, and amphibious lift there was a significant reduction in fixed wing aircraft and battleforce missiles.

    15x Queen Elizabeth CV $60 billion (CATOBAR)

    66x Virginia SSN $66 billion

    75x Daring DDG $75 billion (with Harpoons)
    120x Nansen FFG $60 billion (with 32 VLS)

    30x Mistral LHD $16.5 billion
    45x Rotterdam LPD $17 billion

    12x Supply AOE $7.2 billion
    20x Lewis & Clark AKE $11 billion
    20x Wave Knight AOT $3.6 billion

    TOTAL SHIPS: 403
    TOTAL PRICE: $408.7 billion
    ($15.00 billion a year for 28 years)

    15x CSG
    1x CV
    3x DDG
    4x FFG
    2x SSN

    15x ESG
    2x LPD
    3x LPD
    2x DDG
    2x FFG

    Required Crew: 74,588
    Aurcraft: 750 fixed wing, 480 heavy helos, 555 light helos
    Battleforce Missiles: 9,360
    Marines: 54,495 (150 LCAC)

  98. Al L. permalink
    July 26, 2010 4:44 pm

    Heretic:
    Since my name came up, and I have doudts about AIP subs in general for the U.S. Navy I’ll tell you why I didn’t include them in my Navy(posted below).

    Getting good single source info on Type 214 is difficult, but cross referencing different sources here is a general idea of its ranges and speeds: 12000nm max.(probably at a 6kn patrol speed) 8000nm @ 8kn, 420nm @ 8kn submerged, 1248 @ 4kn submerged. 2-6kn on fuel cells. Max. 20kn. 3 wks w/o snorkeling. 12 week endurance.

    Take a scenario where the U.S. must disrupt an invasion of taiwan by china. It’s a 4540nm line from Pearl Harbor to the Taiwan Strait. A sub won’t travel a direct line where it could easily be intercepted, so add 30% for maneuver. Thats 5902nm. A type 214 traveling that distance at 8kn takes 31 days, when it gets to the strait it has 2098nm of endurance left. Patrolling at 6kn that leaves 14.57 days of time before it has to either resupply from a ship or go into port, at which time its both off station and easily detected or attacked. Ports might be mined, tenders might be sunk or unable to move to the sub etc.
    Compare that to a Virginia class. It gets there in less than 10 days, then can stay on station for months, and can cover much more water because speed does not compromise it’s endurance.

    AIP’s work great as an asset for nations that need regional defense but for the U.S. which needs to be able to meet it’s commitments over long distances, sometimes on short notice, while maintaining stealthyness, they fall short.

    I say the best use of AIP subs would be to help and encourage our allies to buy them. That solves the transit problem.

  99. July 26, 2010 12:09 pm

    Heretic,

    Agreed.

    (P.S. I’m Al, not Al L.)

  100. Heretic permalink
    July 26, 2010 9:40 am

    re: Al L.

    I’m still concerned about the Type 214, though, because the fact remains that it CANNOT reach Europe at a speed of 20 knots. Its surface speed is 12 knots MAX, and it can’t travel 3000 miles underwater even if it cuts its speed to 4 knots.

    You do realize that those 4 and 8 knot speed figures are for cruising on AIP … where you’re using the fuel cells to drive the boat, rather than the diesels … right? The AIP system delivers a far lower power output than the diesels, hence the dramatically slower speed.

    Yes, the boat sails at 12 knots on the surface, and can sail 10,000+ nautical miles while surfaced. How then do you square that with the fact that the boat can drive at 20 knots submerged while snorkeling? After all, modern submarines are designed to have superior underwater performance specs than surface sailing specs (where you’ve got wave action disrupting the boat’s stability).

    So what’s the transit range on a Type 214 snorkeling the whole way at 12 knots?
    What about at 15 knots?
    What about at 18 knots?
    How about snorkeling the whole way at 20 knots?

    The wiki article doesn’t say. It doesn’t even specify, conclusively, if the 12 knot/10,400 nmi range is sailing with decks awash on the surface, or snorkeling the whole way. I’m rather inclined to believe that the “surfaced” range specified in the wiki article is the snorkeling performance … in which case I’m figuring that a Type 214 has plenty of range to not only cross the Atlantic, but also the Pacific, while snorkeling for transit at speeds above 12 knots. Shall we say … 16 knots and split the difference between 12 and 20 knots? An extra 4 knots of speed shouldn’t cut the range by more than … half … wouldn’t you say?

  101. Al L. permalink
    July 25, 2010 8:41 pm

    Moderator please delete my previous 2 comments. My budget table was compressed by the comment software again. Here is my whole post again.

    My 2040 Navy
    Assumptions:
    -I used the projected ship costs from the CBO Analysis of the 2011 ship building plan as much as possible. Link: http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/115xx/doc11527/05-25-NavyShipbuilding.pdf
    -Where CBO costs weren’t projected I used best info available adjusted for inflation to 2010 plus 2%/ year ship building inflation.
    -Assumed a ship to be built once fully funded by 2011 budget. Ships not fully funded were assumed unbuilt. Note some unbuilt ships are partially funded, some funded but not commissioned ships will have overruns. Assumed the 2 will about wash out except in a couple of risky programs.
    - I’ve ignored any extant ship classes that will be retired by 2040 for clarity
    -All costs are in billions of 2010 dollars
    - Budget will be 15 billion/ year in 2010 dollars.

    Base fleet structure:

    8 -FPF (Forward Presence Force): 1 CSV (Carrier Sto-Vl), 2 DDG, 2 CSS (Combat Support Ships), 3 LCS-2, 1 LPD-17 or LSD-X, 1 SSN (requires 8ea CSV, 8ea LPD or LSD; 14 DDG, 14 CSS, 21 LCS-2, 7 SSN)

    8-CAG (Carrier Action Group): 1 CVN, 1 DDG (requires 8 CVN, 7 DDG)

    8-ESG: 1 LHD, 1 LPD, 1 LSD-X, 1 DDG, 1 SSN, 1 CSS, 1-LCS (requires 8ea LHD, LPD, LSD; 7 ea other ships)

    1-BMD force: 10 DDG

    14 – DDG Misc missions, rotation into above groups, reserve
    32 – LCS-2 Misc missions, rotation, littoral action groups, reserve
    34 – JHSV Misc missions, littoral action groups, reserve
    11 – CSS Misc missions, rotation into above groups, littoral action groups, reserve
    46- SSN Patrol, rotation into above groups, reserve
    42 – PC Littoral action groups, allied outreach
    10- SSBN Nuclear deterrence
    3- DDG-1000 NGFS, general DDG missions, Amphibious assault support
    14 – FFG Misc missions, rotation with DDGs, littoral action groups

    The Budget:

    ……………. 2040…….2040………..New…….Unit
    Ship…………Needed….Existing……..Build……Cost…….Total
    CSV…………..8………..1…………..7……..3.8……..26.6
    CVN.(1)………..8………8……………0……………….19
    LHD……………8………2……………6………2………12
    FFG…………..14………0…………..14……..1.33…….18.6
    DDG…………..52………21………….31……..2.1……..65.1
    CSS…………..32………13………….19……..0.6……..11.4
    LCS…………..60………4…….56+12 repl….0.56+0.7……39.8
    LSD…………..14………0…………..14……..0.95…….13.3
    SSN…………..60………14………….46……..2.9…….133.4
    JHSV………….34………3…….31+7 repl……..0.2………7.6
    LPD…………..10………10…………..0……….-………..0
    SSBN………….10………0…………..10……..8.2……..82
    PC……………42………0……42+42 repl…….0.07………5.9
    DDG-1000..(2)…..3………3…………..0………-………..3
    Support Ships….-……….0………….48+-…0.25avg……..12

    Totals……….353……..79………….384………………449.7

    Notes:
    1 – CVN -78 is “fully funded” but only to about 9 billion, I included 5 billion to finish it, + 14 billion for midlife refueling of 7 Nimitz class
    2-DDG-1000 is supposedly fully funded for 3 ships but I can’t believe the budget will hold so I included 3 billion to finish.

    The Ships:
    CSV: its LHA-6 with the C2 space modified to be able to support UAVS up to about the size of an A160T. Unlike CBO I don’t include funds to add back in a well deck. Typical air wing 16-18 F-35B, 3-4 CV-22 navalized, 6-16 MH-60R, 2-8 MH-60S, 12+ uav
    CVN: Nimitz class + CVN-78, each with about 68 fixed wing and 4+ helicopters
    LHD: Same as LHD-8, except for 2 remaining Wasp ships
    FFG: this would be a 5-6000 ton ship similar to an F124 or Nansen. Price is based on both conversion of F124& Nansen price and the per ton cost of DDG-X in the CBO report
    DDG: these are existing Burkes up to DDG-116 then a DDG-x after 2030+-
    CSS: existing & new build T-AKEs, and derivatives of the T-AKE hull
    LCS: LCS-2 and a derived replacement after 25 year life
    LSD: An updated version of LSD-49, same capacities same tonnage. Price extrapolated from LSD-52 price and LPD-17 price per ton.
    SSN: Existing and new Virginias then a similar SSN-x
    JHSV: just like it is now or slightly modified(a hanger added to some)
    LPD: The 10 LPD-17 already built, building or funded
    SSBN: A new design, 1st needed @ 2030 when the Ohios begin to retire, it’s CBOs price.
    PC: A derived “parent craft” design perhaps a Sentinel lengthened to accommodate a 11m RHIB and/or a modular rear deck to interchangeably mount a gun or Scan Eagle launcher or maybe even an NLOS box over the boat ramp.
    DDG-1000: I didn’t want these to get built, but at this point canceling them would probably incur costs that would all but eliminate the savings between their cost and a Flight 3 Burke.
    Support ships: for all those other things the Navy needs. Allowed 12 billion and estimated the average ship would be .25 billion.

    Basic operating concept:
    There are 3 substantial changes from current doctrine.
    1. The FPF would replace the CSG as the forward positioned presence force, focused on the low to medium, green and near blue water challenges. The CVNs and their CAGs would become a reserve force, largely held back until their capabilities were needed. Once a CVN was needed the CAG would plug into the FPF. The CSV would then focus on the nearer shore threats, ASW, and force protection while the CVN would provide AEW&C, strike capability, and long range A-AW, etc.
    The ESGs would operate similarly as they do now , however because the CVNs are reserved, one could be moved in to an ESG to provide more robust response. DDGs, FFGs, LCS, etc would be added or deducted to these groups as needed.
    2. A modular littoral action group capability would be added at the low end. The core of this would be groups of 4-6 PCs operating with LCSs, JHSVs, FFGs and support ships depending on the circumstances. 1 or 2 Flo/Flo ships would be dedicated to moving the PCs overseas. These groups would focus on training and cooperative engagement with allied nations who lack adequate maritime security capabilities. In the hybrid or coin conflict they can be available as needed for green to brown water ops. They could also supplement the Coast Guard. The PCs would be readily sold or given to allies .

  102. Al L. permalink
    July 25, 2010 7:54 pm

    My budget table didn’t copy into the comment window correctly so here it is again:

    The Budget(15/ yr x 30 = 450)

    Ship Needed 2040 New Unit
    Existing Build Cost Total

    CSV 8 1 7 3.8 26.6
    CVN (1) 8 8 0 19.0
    LHD 8 2 6 2.0 12.0
    FFG 14 0 14 1.33 18.6
    DDG 52 21 31 2.1 65.1
    CSS 32 13 19 0.6 11.4
    LCS 60 4 56+12 repl. .56+.7 39.8
    LSD 14 0 14 0.95 13.3
    SSN 60 14 46 2.9 133.4
    JHSV 34 3 31+7 repl. 0.2 7.6
    LPD 10 10 0 – 0
    SSBN 10 0 10 8.2 82
    PC 42 0 42+42 repl. 0.07 5.9
    DDG-1000 (2) 3 3 0 – 3.0
    Support Ships – 0 48+- 0.25 avg. 12.0

    Totals 353 79 384 449.7

  103. Al L. permalink
    July 25, 2010 7:28 pm

    My 2040 Navy
    Assumptions:
    -I used the projected ship costs from the CBO Analysis of the 2011 ship building plan as much as possible. Link: http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/115xx/doc11527/05-25-NavyShipbuilding.pdf
    -Where CBO costs weren’t projected I used best info available adjusted for inflation to 2010 plus 2%/ year ship building inflation.
    -Assumed a ship to be built once fully funded by 2011 budget. Ships not fully funded were assumed unbuilt. Note some unbuilt ships are partially funded, some funded but not commissioned ships will have overruns. Assumed the 2 will about wash out except in a couple of risky programs.
    - I’ve ignored any extant ship classes that will be retired by 2040 for clarity
    -All costs are in billions of 2010 dollars
    - Budget will be 15 billion/ year in 2010 dollars.

    Base fleet structure:

    8 -FPF (Forward Presence Force): 1 CSV (Carrier Sto-Vl), 2 DDG, 2 CSS (Combat Support Ships), 3 LCS-2, 1 LPD-17 or LSD-X, 1 SSN (requires 8ea CSV, 8ea LPD or LSD; 14 DDG, 14 CSS, 21 LCS-2, 7 SSN)

    8-CAG (Carrier Action Group): 1 CVN, 1 DDG (requires 8 CVN, 7 DDG)

    8-ESG: 1 LHD, 1 LPD, 1 LSD-X, 1 DDG, 1 SSN, 1 CSS, 1-LCS (requires 8ea LHD, LPD, LSD; 7 ea other ships)

    1-BMD force: 10 DDG

    14 – DDG Misc missions, rotation into above groups, reserve
    32 – LCS-2 Misc missions, rotation, littoral action groups, reserve
    34 – JHSV Misc missions, littoral action groups, reserve
    11 – CSS Misc missions, rotation into above groups, littoral action groups, reserve
    46- SSN Patrol, rotation into above groups, reserve
    42 – PC Littoral action groups, allied outreach
    10- SSBN Nuclear deterrence
    3- DDG-1000 NGFS, general DDG missions, Amphibious assault support
    14 – FFG Misc missions, rotation with DDGs, littoral action groups

    The Budget:

    2040 New Unit
    Ship Needed Existing Build Cost Total
    CSV 8 1 7 3.8 26.6
    CVN (1) 8 8 0 19
    LHD 8 2 6 2 12
    FFG 14 0 14 1.33 18.6
    DDG 52 21 31 2.1 65.1
    CSS 32 13 19 .6 11.4
    LCS 60 4 56+12 repl. .56+.7 39.8
    LSD 14 0 14 .95 13.3
    SSN 60 14 46 2.9 133.4
    JHSV 34 3 31+7 repl. .2 7.6
    LPD 10 10 0 - 0
    SSBN 10 0 10 8.2 82
    PC 42 0 42+42 repl. .07 5.9
    DDG-1000 (2) 3 3 0 - 3
    Support Ships - 0 48+- .25 avg. 12

    Totals 353 79 384 449.7

    Notes:
    1 – CVN -78 is “fully funded” but only to about 9 billion, I included 5 billion to finish it, + 14 billion for midlife refueling of 7 Nimitz class
    2-DDG-1000 is supposedly fully funded for 3 ships but I can’t believe the budget will hold so I included 3 billion to finish.

    The Ships:
    CSV: its LHA-6 with the C2 space modified to be able to support UAVS up to about the size of an A160T. Unlike CBO I don’t include funds to add back in a well deck. Typical air wing 16-18 F-35B, 3-4 CV-22 navalized, 6-16 MH-60R, 2-8 MH-60S, 12+ uav
    CVN: Nimitz class + CVN-78, each with about 68 fixed wing and 4+ helicopters
    LHD: Same as LHD-8, except for 2 remaining Wasp ships
    FFG: this would be a 5-6000 ton ship similar to an F124 or Nansen. Price is based on both conversion of F124& Nansen price and the per ton cost of DDG-X in the CBO report
    DDG: these are existing Burkes up to DDG-116 then a DDG-x after 2030+-
    CSS: existing & new build T-AKEs, and derivatives of the T-AKE hull
    LCS: LCS-2 and a derived replacement after 25 year life
    LSD: An updated version of LSD-49, same capacities same tonnage. Price extrapolated from LSD-52 price and LPD-17 price per ton.
    SSN: Existing and new Virginias then a similar SSN-x
    JHSV: just like it is now or slightly modified(a hanger added to some)
    LPD: The 10 LPD-17 already built, building or funded
    SSBN: A new design, 1st needed @ 2030 when the Ohios begin to retire, it’s CBOs price.
    PC: A derived “parent craft” design perhaps a Sentinel lengthened to accommodate a 11m RHIB and/or a modular rear deck to interchangeably mount a gun or Scan Eagle launcher or maybe even an NLOS box over the boat ramp.
    DDG-1000: I didn’t want these to get built, but at this point canceling them would probably incur costs that would all but eliminate the savings between their cost and a Flight 3 Burke.
    Support ships: for all those other things the Navy needs. Allowed 12 billion and estimated the average ship would be .25 billion.

    Basic operating concept:
    There are 3 substantial changes from current doctrine.
    1. The FPF would replace the CSG as the forward positioned presence force, focused on the low to medium, green and near blue water challenges. The CVNs and their CAGs would become a reserve force, largely held back until their capabilities were needed. Once a CVN was needed the CAG would plug into the FPF. The CSV would then focus on the nearer shore threats, ASW, and force protection while the CVN would provide AEW&C, strike capability, and long range A-AW, etc.
    The ESGs would operate similarly as they do now , however because the CVNs are reserved, one could be moved in to an ESG to provide more robust response. DDGs, FFGs, LCS, etc would be added or deducted to these groups as needed.
    2. A modular littoral action group capability would be added at the low end. The core of this would be groups of 4-6 PCs operating with LCSs, JHSVs, FFGs and support ships depending on the circumstances. 1 or 2 Flo/Flo ships would be dedicated to moving the PCs overseas. These groups would focus on training and cooperative engagement with allied nations who lack adequate maritime security capabilities. In the hybrid or coin conflict they can be available as needed for green to brown water ops. They could also supplement the Coast Guard. The PCs would be readily sold or given to allies .

  104. July 25, 2010 2:06 pm

    Heretic,

    “Second, how many planes can your seaplane patrol groups each carry? Also, what purpose to seaplanes fullfill that helicopters can’t?

    /facepalm

    SeaLanes … not SeaPlanes.”
    Sorry, I wasn’t completely awake when I wrote that :-)

    I’m still concerned about the Type 214, though, because the fact remains that it CANNOT reach Europe at a speed of 20 knots. Its surface speed is 12 knots MAX, and it can’t travel 3000 miles underwater even if it cuts its speed to 4 knots.

    The Type 214 Wikipedia page:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_214

  105. Heretic permalink
    July 25, 2010 9:13 am

    re: Al

    I have two problems with this setup. First, the Type 214 only has the range to reach Europe if it remains surfaced and limited to a speed of 12 knots.

    I was not aware that the distance from CONUS to Europe was actually over 10,000 nautical miles. When did that happen? Is that something recent?

    Second, how many planes can your seaplane patrol groups each carry? Also, what purpose to seaplanes fullfill that helicopters can’t?

    /facepalm

    SeaLanes … not SeaPlanes.

    You know … those routes that merchant ships tend to take between Here and There for transporting cargo?

    The SeaLane Patrol Groups carry precisely zero seaPlanes … but the Absalon Frigate can carry two helicopters and the Sea Fighter has landing deck space for two helicopters on top and can act as a lily pad to support the Absalon’s helicopters, extending their range and operational fuel security.

  106. B.Smitty permalink
    July 24, 2010 4:47 pm

    I have been futzing with a few different variations. I started with the New Navy Fighting Machine fleet (tab 1), and then went from there.

    http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AiVQu4lA4SjvdEdEV1dQVE1KOHpPNFUzNDJZUHQtY2c&hl=en&authkey=CIjU5rYE

  107. July 24, 2010 7:11 am

    Heretic,

    I have two problems with this setup. First, the Type 214 only has the range to reach Europe if it remains surfaced and limited to a speed of 12 knots. Second, how many planes can your seaplane patrol groups each carry? Also, what purpose to seaplanes fullfill that helicopters can’t?

    Al

  108. Heretic permalink
    July 23, 2010 4:53 pm

    Carrier Strike Group (30+ knot speed)

    1 Ford class CVN = $9000m
    3 Arleigh Burke Flight III DDG = $6000m
    3 Sea Fighter FSF-1 = $600m
    2 Virginia SSN = $4000m

    Total: $19,600m for 9 hulls

    =====

    Amphibious Ready Group (20 knot speed)

    2 Wasp class LHD = $4400
    2 MEKO A-200 Frigate = $654m
    2 Type 214 SSK = $1000m
    2 Sea Fighter FSF-1 = $400m
    1 T-AKE = $285m
    1 JHSV = $160m

    Total: $6899m for 10 hulls

    =====

    Sealane Patrol Groups

    1 Absalon = $269m
    1 Sea Fighter FSF-1 = $200m
    1 Type 214 SSK = $500m

    Total: $969m for 3 hulls

    ==========

    30 year procurement plan:

    8 Carrier Strike Groups = $156.800b for 72 hulls
    12 Amphibious Ready Groups = $82.788b for 120 hulls
    30 Sealane Patrol Groups = $29.070b for 90 hulls
    14 Ohio SSBN Replacements = $98.000b for 14 hulls
    24 Virginia class SSN = $48.000b for 24 hulls

    Total Cost: $414.658 billion over 30 years = $13.822 billion per year
    Total Hulls: 320

    Hulls by type:

    8 Ford class CVN
    24 Wasp class LHD
    24 Arleigh Burke Flight III DDG
    24 MEKO A-200 Frigate
    30 Absalon Frigate
    78 Sea Fighter FSF-1
    12 T-AKE
    12 JHSV
    54 Type 214 SSK
    40 Virginia class SSN
    14 Ohio SSBN Replacements

    ======

    Here’s the beauty of this procurement plan. It’s cheaper than what the USN is doing now … meaning that if the ship building budget were to remain stable at $14-15 billion per year for the next 30 years, there’d be money “left over” to fund other ship building needs which I haven’t included in this plan. Furthermore, this plan involves building 320 new hulls over 30 years of procurement, revitalizing the navy with new build ships.

    Ford class CVN procurement would accelerate from 1 per 5 years to 1 per 3.75 years. Hello savings (which “don’t count” for anything in this exercise)!

    USMC MEUs would be embarked upon a pair of Wasp class LHDs, rather than split between a Wasp class LHD and a San Antonio class LPD (which incidentally costs almost as much as a Wasp class for barely more than half the lift capacity!). Yes, I’m advocating discontinuing the San Antonio class of LPDs entirely and shifting to an all LHD force for amphibious lift, which incidentally improves amphibious lift, beach assault and sea control potential. Ironically, the Wasp class LHDs are some of the best Bang For Buck in this regard, given their all around capabilities.

    Virginia SSN procurement is accelerated to the point where the construction rates allow for increased savings on a per boat basis of $2 billion per boat when building 2 per year (since there are 40 boats over 30 years).

    Ohio class SSBN replacement is not only fully funded, I’m going by the $7 billion figure and planning on 14 boats, not 12 … and I’m still not busting the budget over 30 years.

    Of the 320 new hulls to be built, only 108 of them are foreign designs … 24 MEKO A-200, which have plenty of growth potential … 30 Absalon, for sealane patrol … and 54 Type 214 SSK, to augment the Silent Service in such a way as to give it an ASW escort role without tying up precious SSN resources better expended on blue water “lone wolf” solo patrols. This makes for an almost exactly 2/3rds domestic build, 1/3rd foreign build mix for the fleet, with none of the foreign builds being types that involve major national security (ie. MUST be home built!) issues.

  109. Hudson permalink
    July 21, 2010 4:59 pm

    Al,

    The Perrys aren’t small, but they were cheap, built in the era when the Tarawas cost app. 300mil (!), and they kind of snuck into a long line of glorious DDs. So the Perry FFGs were kind of an ugly duckling, that’s my guess.

  110. July 21, 2010 1:12 pm

    Hudson,

    Yeah, I’d boot those admirals ;-)

    Apart from being small, why did the USN dislike the Perrys?

    Al

  111. Hudson permalink
    July 21, 2010 12:22 am

    Al,

    The lifetime cost structure for all the ships in the table is frightening, even the humble Avenger mine vessels seem unaffordable. The USN never really liked the Perrys and found ways to get rid of many of them. Curiously, we are up-arming the ship for foreign navies, e.g., Egypt, while neglecting our own FFGs, which are now without the “G.” Faced with large numbers of Perrys today, the Navy would dispatch several dozen to the Gulf of M to suck up oil! I guess you would boot those admirals. LOL.

  112. July 20, 2010 6:39 pm

    Thanks for verifying my numbers, Mike.

    The Navy I posted is my idea of a “conservative” (i.e. no foreign or new ship classes). I’ll post another on soon that’s a bit more radical.

    Al

  113. Mike Burleson permalink*
    July 20, 2010 5:42 pm

    Al, that sounds about right on the FFG built in USN yards since Craig Hooper once called the Perry’s the LCS of the seventies and equated the price of each to match, though I’d take a Standard and Harpoon armed FFG over the LCS any day! But the price is one reason I like corvettes.

  114. July 20, 2010 12:58 pm

    Hudson,

    I included so many FFGs because I believe the Navy needs a large number of smaller heavily armed ships to complement the large ships. This would avoid keeping “all our eggs in one basket”.

    As for cost, I guesstimated that the cost of an FFG was $750 million from this (not ideal) source:
    http://www.examiner.com/x-36464-NY-Military-Headlines-Examiner~y2010m5d12-Historys-greatest-navy-what-it-costs

    I then added $100 million to account for basic upgrades over the original design, the addition of the missile tubes, and inflation.

    Al

  115. Hudson permalink
    July 20, 2010 10:34 am

    Anonymous,

    Since you asked (fire away), why so many FFGs, and why are they so expensive? Weren’t they $50mil to build?

    Just curious.

  116. martin permalink
    July 20, 2010 9:15 am

    Royal Navy

    2 * Queen Elizabeth Class CV converted to CTOL (2*$ 3.7 billion)
    2* Ocean Class LPH (2* $225 million)
    2* Albion Class LPD (2* $350 million)
    4* Bay Class LSD (4* $ 350 million)
    6* Point Class RORO
    3* Wave Night Fast fleet Tanker (3* 172 million)
    6* Rover Class support tanker replacement, estimate (6*80 million)
    2* Leaf Class
    3* Fort Class
    1* Argus
    1* Endurance

    Surface Combatant

    Type 45 Batch 1 * 6 (6* $976 million)
    Type 45 Batch 2 * 18 (see note below) (18 * 1 billion)

    Type 26 Canceled saving $ 5 billion

    BMT Venator (C3) Patrol Frigate * 64 (estimate 64* $150 million)

    Patrol Frigate to be armed with CAAMS

    (Type 45 Batch 2 to be increased in size to fit 90 cell Sylver A70 Launcher. Able to carry storm shadow, Tomahawk and Aster 45 ABM

    Also fitted with Harpoon and ASROC

    Aviation facilities to be improved to accommodate Merlin

    Main Gun improved up to 155 MM

    Improved ASW capability with Torpedo Launcher and towed array sonar)

    Submarine

    6 Astute Class SSN Batch 1 (6* 2,14 billion)
    6 Astute Class SSGN Batch 2 (sea note) (6 * 3 billion)

    4 Vanguard Class SSBN (mid life refit to extend to 2040)

    Vanguards to be replaced by 4 SSBK each carrying 12 Trident E6. SSGN’s also able to act in deterrent role as required.

    Astute SSGN batch 2 to include 4 tube flexible trident missiles. Each tube able to operate either 1 trident D5 or 7 tomahawk or USV or UAV or special forces.

    Aircraft

    12* MRA4 maritime patrol (12* $660 million)

    100 f35 C’s to be purchased and used to replace Harrier and Tornado. 24 to operate from each CV. (100 * $133 million)

    Taranus UCAV to be carrier capable each CV to operate 12 (estimate 50 * $100 million)

    12 * E2D Hawk-eye to for AWACS each CV to operate 4 (12* $225 million)

    60* Merlin (60* $150 million)

    100 * Future Lynx (100 * $21 million)

    Standing Deployments

    South Atlantic 2* Patrol Frigate 1* SSN
    Caribbean 1* Patrol Frigate
    North Atlantic 1* Patrol Frigate
    Mediterranean 2* Patrol Frigate
    Black Sea 1 * Type 45 on ABM patrol
    Indian Ocean (West) 1* Type 45 4* Patrol Frigate 1* SSGN
    Indian Ocean (East) 1* Type 45 2 * Patrol Frigate 1* SSN/SSGN

    Carrier Strike Group 1* CV 2* Type 45 batch 1, 2* Type 45 batch 2 1 fast fleet tanker
    Carrier Air Wing 24*F35 C 12* Sea Taranus, 4 * E2D Hawkeye 4 * Merlin ASW
    Amphibious Ready Group 1* LPH 1* Type 45 Batch 1, 1* Type 45 batch 2, 1*LPD, 2 LSD,

    Think I am dreaming? Taking into account units already in service or budgeted for the additional ships and aircraft would cost an extra $54.78. Buys these over a 12 year period we could afford this force structure by simply cutting the department of foreign development (or what ever they call it theses days) budget in half. Now how easy would that be and we could have a Navy second to only the US (and not by a long way either).

  117. Anonymous permalink
    July 19, 2010 1:30 pm

    25 Lewis and Clark T-AKE at $538 mil ($13.45 bil)
    8 Wasp LHD at $2.2 bil ($17.6 bil)
    8 San Antonio LPD at $1.76 bil ($14.08 bil)
    8 Harpers Ferry LSD at $400 mil ($3.2 bil)
    28 Arleigh Burke DDG at $1.8 bil ($50.4 bil)
    120 Oliver Hazard Perry FFG at $850 mil ($102 bil)
    41 Virginia SSN at $2.4 bil ($98.4 bil)
    12 SSBN at $7 bil ($84 bil)
    12 Virginia SSGN at $3 bil ($36 bil)

    Total cost $419.13 billion

    Notes:
    Each Perry FFG is equipped with two 8-cell VLS and two Mk. 141 Harpoon launchers.

    Organization:
    8 ESG:
    1 Wasp LHD
    1 San Antonio LPD
    1 Harpers Ferry LSD
    2 Arleigh Burke DDG
    6 Oliver Hazard Perry FFG
    1 Virginia SSN
    1 Lewis and Clark T-AKE

    12 Escort Groups:
    1 Arleigh Burke DDG
    6 Oliver Hazard Perry FFG
    1 Virginia SSN
    1 Lewis and Clark T-AKE
    Notes: These groups would either escort merchant convoys or accompany ESGs.

    The remaining submarines and T-AKEs would operate independently or be attached to ESG/Escorts as required.

    Fire away.

    Al

  118. Hudson permalink
    July 19, 2010 1:08 pm

    Thanks, Mike.

  119. Mike Burleson permalink*
    July 19, 2010 4:38 am

    Hudson, very interesting!

  120. Mike Burleson permalink*
    July 19, 2010 4:28 am

    Links are fixed. My apologies. For some reason I had them linked to the edit page for each post.

    I first saw this shadow profile of the Iowa class in an old set of Encyclopedias we had growing up. I still think the Iowa’s are the most beautiful USN ships ever!

  121. Hudson permalink
    July 19, 2010 1:49 am

    We seem to be moving into an era when oceans will rise, populations will rise, and ship building costs will also rise. Many formerly proud navies will have no more than a handful of ships in the future. We already see this today, with countries selling off fixed assets to pay for social programs. And who knows what the U.S. will be able to afford in the way of new ships considering our huge national debt?

    Nonetheless, I forge ahead, using David Axe’s naval budget of $14 billion annually over 30 years, ($420 billion) using mainly NWs figures and making up some of my own. LOL! I tried to build a balanced fleet, in Navy tradition, with the emphasis on sea control/denial. Hence, the subs.

    Ohio SSBN/SSGN 12 @ 7B 84B
    Virginia SSGN 34 @ 2.4B 81.6B
    Collins SSK 16 @ 350M 5.6B (est. cost)

    I chose the Collins class for its long range and endurance, mainly to patrol the Americas. All my subs can .take a 30-40ft re-supply capsule either mounted on the hull or towed underwater to extend endurance. In a nuclear war, with ports and bases destroyed, subs will carry on the fight, carry military and civilian leaders, and establish forward bases.
    The sun is setting on the big decks; whatever the loss in capabilities, you still must pay for your hulls. They will be in every enemy’s bullseye.

    Nimitz class 4 @ 6B 24B
    America LHA 6 4 @ 3B 12B
    Makin Island LHD 8 6 @ 2.2B 13.2B
    San Antonio LPD 17 10@ 2.0B 20B (will mount 5” guns)

    In the surface combatant category, I eliminated frigates altogether, relying on the excellent Knud Rasmussen for light frigate/corvette/OPV numbers and of course DDGs. Absolon gets a refit for 1 Advanced Gun System per ship.

    DDG-1000 1 @ 6B 6B (technology demonstrator)
    DDG-51 30 @ 1.8B 54B
    K. Rasmussen 30 @ 50M 1.5B
    Absalon 6 @ 275M 1.65B (with modifications)
    LCS-2 6 @ .7B 4.2B
    JHSV 12 @ 160M 1.92B
    Austal Multi-Modal 9 @ 160M 1.44B (wild guess)
    T-AKE 16 @ 375M 6B

    196 ships = app. 315B

    ————————————————————————————————————
    Misc. Ships/Boats
    Additional auxiliaries (oilers, etc.)
    Landing craft
    Littoral attack boats (mortars,cannon)
    Other patrol craft, riverine craft, FACs (M-Stilleto, etc.)
    Robot subs (mine warfare +)

    If this looks paltry to you, consider what the rest of the worlds’s navies—most friendly to us—will look like. And consider all the supplies, munitions, aircraft, helicopters and UAVs that must be paid for out of my remaining budget of 105 billion. Of course, you could play the game by different rules—ship costs only.

    I spent a lot of time thinking about the kind of world we will be living in in the future. How many wars, especially long grinding wars, can America afford to fight? Surely, a fleet such as this (give or take) could establish a strong American naval presence anywhere in the world, in more than one place at once, that could not be ignored by foreign powers—and with our allies, still rule the seven seas.

  122. Joe permalink
    July 19, 2010 12:43 am

    Mike,

    I think the 3 links you provided have issues.

    As of the time of my posting they will direct users to a “New Wars Login Page”, requesting User Name and Password. Each is a unique link and given the other info you see in a mouse-over, I’m guessing that it’s each blog entry’s edit page signon which only you have the keys to the castle for.

    We aren’t blind as these posts can be found by using the “search” function…just pointing out stuff which is what I do in life ;)

    BTW: cool silhouette of the Iowa-class ships there.

  123. Anonymous permalink
    July 17, 2010 11:04 am

    Never mind, I just remembered original post didn’t include aircraft.

    Al

  124. Anonymous permalink
    July 17, 2010 10:21 am

    If using aircraft carriers or LHDs should we include the cost of the carried aircraft in our estimates, or just the cost of the ships?

    Al

  125. Hudson permalink
    July 15, 2010 6:03 pm

    Thanks, Mike! Now, I’ve got to get busy building my fleet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 232 other followers

%d bloggers like this: