Why a decline in capability, WW II to today?

[Skippy_Doolittle]

The maneuverability of ships today is unmatched compared to WWII as well. Mind you diesels are the old standby and proven over time for sure, but throw in two turbines and CPPs on the shafts and you have a shift that can accelerate, maintain speed, turn and stop within a ship length or two; over a set of steam boilers and set props.

[Jacknola]

I don't understand the naval question. A WWII destroyer is heavy on crew, has an obscene RADAR profile and I won't even get into the sound signature. It basically would wash out most other ships with how loud she'd be.

Modern ships are far more better given the investment in technology. With missiles which can fire over the horizon or be 'handed off' to another platform; passive SONAR for the hunting of surface AND subsurface targets; fast rate of fire guns for anti-aircraft, piracy missions; lower crew complement yet better living standards; etc, modern ships are leaps and bounds about a WII destroyer.

The power plant can only make a shaft spin so fast before it is limited by the shaft, prop and mono hull design. A 30 knot war ship today can hit harder and farther than a 40 knot DD from WWII. Plus you wanna go fast in the water you pay for it in sound propagation (which is hard to discuss in this forum due to OPSEC).

Again - I'm NOT advocating using WW II tech, guns, weapons ... I'm wondering why the basic package today is so inferior... by that i mean speed, range, draft, manuverability, etc., when comparing ships of the same displacement. OK... take a Fletcher, strip it down to the 2nd deck, rebuild it with modern weapons, and it would run circles aroud the K130 without ANY change in powerplant. Don't underestimate the manuverability of Fletchers of the time.... they could fishtail like a dauphin.

This is the question.. why is there such a cost difference and time-of-build? Do you get a quatum leap in basic performance Fletchre to K130, that justifies the horrendous increase in cost and time?

[Silent Reader]

My point was to compare performance in tonnage classes that are in the same range.

Clearly K130 has problems... but the Fletchers seem to have outperformed every current Naval ship in their general tonnage range, and they were not regarded as the best DDs in the world at the end of the war.

Frankly I don't understand the dispsarity of speed, range, cost, length of time it takes to build a ship now compared to WW II. It seems to me that if we had a bunch of Fletcher hulls/packages today, upgrading their weapons systems to include missles etc.,would give a much cheaper, more capable platform.

=> The Fletcher has a crew 5 times bigger despite being about the same size. The operating costs for the K130 must be much lower.
=> The K130 might have less guns, but those are more accurate and thus make up for it.
=> Part of the guns have been replaced by missiles => again more accurate
=> The Fletcher might have a higher range, but I doubt it realistically can stay longer on a mission considering you have to feed 329 people vs 65 people.
=> Fletcher might have been faster, but then again through modern navigation, communication tools and sensors the K130 probably knows better where it has to go.

[Skippy_Doolittle]

Speed is not the be all and end all in modern ship to ship warfare. Speed with a skimmer vs a sub will get you killed in a heartbeat. Back then, with the old AZDIC sets you weren't looking for ships you were looking for subs as loud as you were. Today, that is not the case at all.

[Skippy_Doolittle]

We tend to romance the days of WWII and such with tanks, planes and ships. Talk to WWII Navy vets and they will tell you why a ship of that era was no fun to live/work aboard.

[Ratamacue]

Frankly I don't understand the dispsarity of speed, range, cost, length of time it takes to build a ship now compared to WW II. It seems to me that if we had a bunch of Fletchers today, upgrading their weapons systems to include missles etc.,would give a much cheaper, more capable platform.

Modifying a Fletcher-class destroyer to carry any significant number of missiles, along with all associated mainstays of modern naval ships (radio, radar, satellite links, force networking, CIWS) is an absolutely absurd proposition. Moreover, modern ships have greatly expanded facilities inside to provide a substantially higher standard of living and safety for the crew. Add all these issues up and you also run in to a major power problem. Think a WWII-era destroyer is able to provide electricity for all these systems? Think again.

And I'm still not tracking on the whole "less capability" thing. If we're comparing classes, an Arleigh Burke-class destroyer virtually has the capability single-handedly wipe out the army or navy of a small country. By comparison, a Fletcher would be hard-pressed to reach 10 miles inland with any sort of accurate fire, and would have the same limitation in a naval engagement (with most of the rounds not even coming near its target). If we're comparing tonnage, it's kind of pointless, as modern ships comparable to the size of the Fletcher are not really intended for any kind of large-scale operations.

Consider also the crew complement of ships. Old ships required extensive manpower to just to keep running, let alone operate their offensive and defensive systems. That K130 needs only 65 crew, and the new USN Littoral Combat Ships (~2000 tons) need 40-75, whereas a Fletcher needs 329--more than an Arleigh Burke 4-5 times its size. Do you want to pay for the cost of supplying the consumables for a crew that size on a platform of limited capability?

[KoTeMoRe]

Has TT started hacking accounts?

[Skippy_Doolittle]

Comparing online stats of ships is not a true measure of the capability of each platform. Might as well compare a Seawolf to a Uboat.

[Mackie]

Difference between the Fletcher and K130 --> Labor costs.

[toad]

I kind of see where Jacknola is going with this. The P-51/ Tucano being the easiest to understand. Even with inflation. A P-51 would probably adjust to about 1mil, where a Tucano is 5+million. And it doesn't matter what the role of the A/C was in WWII, its not germain.

Bottom line. Why buy a plane today that can't do what a WWII A/C could.....and spend much more.... (?)


The ship part gets grayer (no pun intended). But Jack is speaking of 'platform'. Not the specific weaps per se.
He summed it up in his post " if we had a bunch of Fletcher hulls/packages today, upgrading their weapons systems to include missles etc.,would give a much cheaper, more capable platform. "

Replying about hand trained guns misses his point about 'platforms' and costs.


One person even reinforced his point by saying one modern 5" could match the rate of a Fletcher's multiple guns ! Really?
You want to admit that you managed to spend all that money to match a WWII ship ?


/has a point
//but it's complicated

[Chiptox]

^^^ out of my lane military specs wise, but could it be that the costs of military equipment as with everything else is higher, because of inflation?

I agree. Jacknola, while I respect your opinion, you seem to be ignoring several blatantly obvious reasons why new equipment costs more.

Look at the crew size between the Fletcher and K130. A difference of nearly 300 sailors.


Let's also not forget that the Mustang and Fletcher would be deep trouble in a faceoff because of the more capable firepower (AIM-9 and RBS-15) packed by their newer adversaries. That capability costs. On the whole we are talking technology and manufacturing expertice several orders of magnitude greater than the antiquated RR Merlin and Mark 37.

[Skippy_Doolittle]

We were talking about the 'platform' itself as well... with ships they are fully integrated so you have to mention weapons and electronics along with the engine and hull.

A steam boiler at full power can do sprint speeds yes, but remember that not all listed speeds online are true of the platform. OPSEC means more in the Navy than many on this Forum realize. The Cold War didn't end in the world of ships and submarines regardless of what people think.

[Jacknola]

Again, I understand all that. BUT - there has to be a need for naval ships in the 2,000 dwt size, or the K130 wouldn't be built. Whatever the role envisioned for ships of that displacment (K130), those ships do not seem to be able to perform any better than a design 70 years old.

What do we build warships and planes for? Actually it is three different roles. I. fight a major war against a major enemy who is technologically and manpower-wise on an approximately equal footing - hence Arleigh Burkes, F-18s, F-22s. II fight a minor war against a marginal stoneage power with limited resources - hence K130s, Harriers, F-16, etc.


But what about door #3? Fight against NGOs, terrorists, pirates, drug smugglers, low level insurgencies, etc.? To use a F-22 to go after a guruella band is rediculous. Does it make sense to use an Arleigh Burke to chase pirates in a fishing boat? My point is that more than enough capability existed in WW II to handle door #3, and probably door #2 at a fraction of the cost of development and deployment. Food for thought?

[Skippy_Doolittle]

I am missing your point, brother. All the points made so far, concerning the naval aspect, explain why modern ships are far superior than 70 years ago... tactics and weapons change, as do engines and living spaces. I am not sure what specifically you are talking about in that the 70 year old platform is better... cause its listed as a faster speed?

[Silent Reader]

The terrorist / pirate thing will be done by the F125 in Germany. which will make your head explode if you see the size

But then again.. the operating costs and ability to stay in theatre for 2 years non stop make up for a lot....