I didn't mean retrofitting 1940's era ships to a modern standard, but newly build units that continue these old concepts. For example, a modern, simple and cheap equivalent of the Inshore Fire Support Ship (IFS). I'm aware this runs against today's multirole thinking, and is more like a wet dream.Originally Posted by Skippy_Doolittle
They have. The Steamers of the RCN and even the 280's once they went through TRUMP and modernization are examples of 40's and 50's era technology in today's world. Ships are cities where electricity and AC is concerned, and there is so much more to it than just retrofitting. (though I'd love to see a WWII Corvette updated)
Yeah, I am waiting to see what is next for the Navy's and if the multi-role ship of today is truly capable in the future. The blurring of Corvette, Frigate and Destroyer (never mind the Japanese Helicopter Destroyers) has changed the face of Naval warfare after near a hundred years.
So effectively a 'modern' ship then? The hypothesis renders your original comparison a bit moot, wouldn't you say?
Those names really don't mean anything anymore, tonnage and speed mean less than sensors and (offensive)capability these days.
Too true. How the hell are Karel Doormans and Zeven Provinciën both classes as "frigates".
Because we say they are.
Does any newly built, but cheap and low-tech platforms of comparable displacement as the Fletcher-class come to your mind? Would be interesting to compare stats and price. Philippines navy seems to have still ww2-ships in use. Any serious modernization on those?
It's hard to compare stats with warships because all that gets listed is basic gear and weapons and speed, and other factors never get compared. Its like comparing firearms or tanks based solely on wikipedia entries.
My old bosun was one of the last serving german navy Fletcher sailors in the late 70s and he always told us the horror stories of six man heads without any sort of wall between them and extremely cramped bunks.
And the postwar Fletchers allready had less crew than the 1945 version.
They must have crammed 40mm and 20mm crew bunks everywhere.
I would raise a couple of points:
Prices for anything purchased in say 1942 and converted to 2010 dollars would require a minimum inflation multiplier of approx 13.5X.
Then you'd have to add on top the cost of technology that didn't exist then, but does now......the IT/sensor cost portion of weapon systems would be a quite significant portion of total system cost.
Economy of scale.......back then stuff got built by the thousands...today(outside of consumer/civvie gear), not so much...particularly when it comes to weapon systems.
Along with the economy of scale there is system R&D costs that need to be amortized across the production run.
I agree with Jack in the respect it would appear some western designs(in warships) seem a bit lacking when you compare them with WWII counterparts....they're not exactly bristling with weapons are they?
While the Soviet era ships seemed about ready to tip over from all the missiles and guns.
The example I offer than might provide some perspective would be the Liberty Ship.
At the production peak and as a bit of a propaganda gimmick, they knocked out a Liberty Ship like a sausage in under 5 days.
I seriously doubt a similar ship with similar capability could be constructed for a similar price.....the production scale just isn't there.
I do reckon there is a pretty substantial reluctance on the part of the US Navy and Air Force in some ways to want to cover the less sexy "global janitor" type jobs while focused like a laser on the big ticket uber cool stuff(Seawolf and F22 respectively).
A cheap off the shelf COIN capable aircraft able to work in permissive to semi permissive environments seems like a no brainer, but also seems unlikely to be adopted by any org outside of the SMUs, 3 letter agencies, and their enablers.
One example would be the Cessna 208:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eSKsrILHxNM
The US set the Iraqis up with them for conventional use, but is this something the USAF would actually do itself?
Or does it ignore it and leave it to the SMUs/3 letter agencies/enablers to perform that global janitorial services role?
Which to me might be valid, but where I question it is what is the point in wearing out a jillion dollar Apache Longbow that costs a heap to run per hour just to hunt down a couple guys with AKs and RPGs that the US cannot afford to easily replace when a far cheaper and far cheaper to operate platform could do a bunch of the jobs just as good?
Save the Longbows for killing Chinese or Pakistani or Iranian tanks.
Same with the Navy......it sounds like the Oliver Hazard Perry Class frigates were not too popular.......but they were inexpensive......and provided that Hi Lo mix that was the buzzword of the 80s(much like the original F16 and F15).
It's a shame you can't build a frigate sized ship with a very small complement that can do a fair bit for not much money......I reckon the Somali piracy/maritime asymmetrical stuff will continue.......which will be the Navy equivalent of using an Apache Longbow to kill one guy with an AK.
I do think the focus moving forward is going to have to be on how to achieve more(battlespace awareness and dominance)per platform but with less money to procure it, less people manning/supporting the platform, and less energy burned running it.
That's a tall order.
From something I read recently, they wanted to use P-47's for the ground attack role in Korea. But they'd retired all the P-47N's and only had left the P-47M's which were regarded as ... worse to fly than their predecessors. So the P-51 ended up with the role as they still had lots of them in service.
As for ships and their speed. I think that modern weapons have largely invalidated speed as an important factor in modern warships. Once, you needed that 35+ knots to close in on enemy cruisers/battleships/etc to launch torpedoes or to get in range of your 5" guns. With missiles moving at hundreds (if not thousands) of km/h, the movement of the ship whether as target or launcher has become a lot less relevent.
My point was well covered by Kiwi ... economy of scale, simplicity of design, numbers... are something that doesn't seem important, and the mass production of WW II is probably not available. Yet what about the "mission?" Is there any reall need for need for squadrons of F-16s etc., in Afghanistan? You would get a lot more for a lot less by substituting several squadrons of A-1 sky raiders.
Likewise, hundreds of millions spent on brown-water prototypes, and no workable design? Well, what about a division of PT boats, updated with modern electronics without trying to be stars wars, to patrol the Persian Gulf? Likewise, the Phillipines could more easily afford and use that type of craft ... because if a shooting war breaks out with China, the difference between a frigate and MTB is not going to be very much.
Yes we need high tech.. but at what point do we have Yamatos, so big, so expensive, that they cannnot be risked? I feel that the mix of our forces is skewed to fight China, the USSR, etc. Thus when Afghanistan blow up, we seem to have only the option of SF (which had been mission changed to direct action) or the death star, and no options for air support except F-16s, F-18s, Harriers, and of course, helicopters... which are expensive to operate, limited in range, and limited in altitude.
I watched a mil channel program on the Burke class... and they were conducting fire practice with the 5"... at a range of 6,000 yds. Great. The DDs at Layte were hitting the IJN crusiers at 18,000 yards with radar directed, automatic fire. In that battle, the JQ Jonney fired 600 rounds in about 10 minutes, starshells, HC, AP, anything that came up the lift. What happens to our Burkes when you have to fight off 50 little torpedo boats manned by jihadists in restricted waters? I do hope we have that capability in confined waters, and I'm sure we have a plan.
I'm not advocating returning to the past. But am giving thought to force mix, and mission, and capabilities of our opponents ... and I wonder about ours. Its worth considering is it not?
I think if an Aegis had to engage a Chinese cruiser equivelent they'd be using either Harpoons or Standards (with air burst mode to shred the CL's radar and upper works) EDIT: 80+ nautical miles directed by AWACS/helicopter
I do agree that a lot of modern equipment is overspecc'd for the current threat. But "better to have an not need than need and not have"...
Limited budgets are part of the problem. Most militaries are facing cuts or budget freezes right now. The idea of expanding the military to supplement 5th gen fighters and modern warships, with "lesser" COIN aircraft for Afghanistan and OPVs to patrol off Somalia is out of the question in most procurement budgets. In an ideal world you'd have both. In the real world you're forced to use a multi billion pound destroyer to take on half a dozen knobheads in a skiff.
The engines in most of those ships have been replaced or overhauled. In terms of armaments, it would need serious retrofitting and redesign due to the deck penetration needed for modern systems. As there was no major enemy perceived for decades there was no push to upgrade its armaments outside of maintaining the guns. They are more treated as OPV's than the frigates and escort ships of yore.
As for Jacknola's PT boat issue, it was discussed but with the sensor suite available on sheeps right now, and the limited range of torpedos, they wouldnt have a chance against a fleet with all its sensors on. To answer that then you would need a Missile Boat, which then makes it bigger for the radars and the armaments... then you add the fact that they need to reach the middle of south china se and must survive category 5 sea state, so it gets bigger still and before you know it viola, you have a Corvette.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote