James Powell
-
Posts
30 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Calendar
Posts posted by James Powell
-
-
I don't know how sucessful LF sonar would be- without a war, it is very hard to justify using something that will do quite severe damage to the environment.
(sure, we can "win" a nuke war, but will we want to live on the world that results?)
I have my doubts as to how well LF will work, as I think that it will end up being relatively short gain and very limited utility. Like all active sensors, it causes the problem that it is like being a person with a flashlight in a dark room- you can only see what you are pointing at, and everything that is in the room can see where the light is.
I am supprised more bistatic systems are not in use, especially given the higher data transfer rates that are now available. In the Littoral, they are unlikely to be all that useful, but LF is going to be equally useless...HF minehunting sonar would work, but has a very limited range. (DE sub can bottom...or hover, and that makes it very hard to find the thing...think of looking for your car battery (~2000 ton one, mind you!), sitting on or very near the bottom of the ocean).
This leaves passive arrays, which the USN and the RCN both use. If a diesel is snorting, there is a decent chance of hearing it. If it is on batteries, forgettaboutit, it is going to be flaming datum time.
There is the possibilty of using large HE charges to generate single LF waves, which then could be interpreted by SOSUS or SURTASS ships (if any of them are still servicable...I know there were a decent # of them in Pearl, but I don't know if they were useable or not)
Mag capacity and availabilty of enough LWT's is a serious concern. In wartime, the stocks on hand would probably be used fairly quickly.
James
-
ASW in the PNW...well, at least here there is a chance that the USN and RCN will have a new tin mouse to chase around as per Rainbow and Gristle, whenever we finally manage to get HMCS Victoria (SSK, ex Upholder class) off the wall here. Of course, by my figuring, it would have been easier to float the damm'd thing on loonies ($1 coins) than refiting it.
ASW- I can remember several times in 97 when we were hunting with the VDS off the back of HURON, I don't think we ever found anything. Of course, a VDS in active mode is more like a torpedo magnet than anything else, even if it is the best that we had got. (the two seathings that she carried on the other hand...they might be useful). I haven't been on a ship with sonar for the last few years (well, if you except a fish finder!), so I don't know what is being done to hunt in the RCN. I do know that side scan stuff has been done over a lot of our coastal waters, just read how HMCS Yellowknife lost two towed bodies over the last couple of years...
James Powell
-
When I was posted to HMCS Algonquin (DDG 283) the joke was that we were posted to "Building 283, the Jetty Class Destroyer". As far as the coffee grounds go, I would think it would be more likely the coffee mugs that cause problems...as we (sailors) tend to occasinally tip them over the side rather than returning them to the galley.
In the various times Esquimalt harbour has been dredged out (most recently in 94 or so) there has been a lot of stuff found, and CFB Esquimalt's museum has some of the stuff. (some of the base buildings are amongst the oldest in Victoria).
James
-
because the sea-going professionals are unhappy, and they know a hell of a lot more about the subject than any of us.
Um, I would consider myself to be a seagoing professional. Unless 10 years as a Mar Eng doesn't count?
To be frankly honest, I am more concerned with what will happen when the Canadian version of the LCS, known as Orca, runs across some druggies who decide to shoot it out. Since we are likely to be used to supplement the MCDV's with there whopping armament of a 40mm cannon, with our single .50, and a crew of 2 (1 bosn, 1 engineer) ...well, you do the math. What happens when the crew on a drug carrying boat decides to try to duke it out with us ?
And you thought US sailors had issues with multi tasking. I do: Helm (Special Sea Dutyman). Ropework. Cleaning stations supervisor. Anchor detail. All engineering tasks. Fuel management (including fueling). Pollution Control. DCO. DC team IC. (makes coordination simple). Black Water Maintance. Electrician. Advisor to CO when they are reserve & don't sail much. Have done basic nav, radar nav, comms...well, if it is something that a 70 ton ship can do, I have been involved, and I doubt the tasking list will decrease with the new boats.
James
-
Did you know that the serving Surface Warfare line officers, from 0-1 to 0-5 have been saying for years now, that the LCS had a critical flaw from day one, that of a hazordous low manning level, one that will NOT allow the ship to both fight and do damage control.
(snip)
I also want all the rest of the sailors who will sail on this ship to have the same chance of surviving war in this ship, just like the FFG sailors found out on the Stark and the Roberts (I've worked on both of them, and am on the Roberts now).
Byron
I know I pointed out the same flaw. The reality is though, that we (sailors) get paid to go in harms way. There are times when we will be callosly risked relative to the reward to the nationstate that sends us into harms way. I don't think that a properly designed PG is a bad ship to go into harms way in. Frankly, what worries me is NOT the ability of a 2000 ton ship to take a Shipwreck and keep on fighting. I mean, come on...we have all gamed it enough to know what is going to happen to a 2000 ton ship hit by Exocet, let alone anything bigger. It is going to be a mission kill. Period. Personal survival would be nice, but sometimes, well, we eat the salt, we take the risks.
I think I outlined what I would arm it with...to be more specific, 16 ESSM,4 Harpoon, CWIS 2B (? one with a IIR and manual mode as well as the pure AAW mode), and a 57mm gun as the base weapons load. Mission loadout dependant on mission. That gives near enough the same weapons loadout as a CPF, but on a much lighter platform, requiring a lot more logistic support. This is a unit that would not be able to deploy without tender or shore support.
Yes, the darn'd thing is at risk in combat. Equipped with a decent SAM (baselined, not a mission fit), with a reasonable number of them (hence the 16 that I would use...that's 4 cells worth...), gives you 8 targets (2x missiles/per target). If the opfor uses more than 8 missiles to try and take a LCS out, they want it...well, toast would be a reasonable word, I think, to describe it.
Stark and Vincennes probably describe the other problem. NCID. Without KNOWING what the target is, how are you going to choose to shoot it out of the sky/sea? (subs can fairly safely be assumed to be hostile, there are not many TWA submarines
James Powell
-
Another LCS tidbit from Commander Salamander:
http://cdrsalamander.blogspot.com/2006/06/...-dumb-idea.html
"LCS is based on a PowerPoint concept that won't work and at $300 million a pop for a hull with no mission system (add another $150-200 million) based on yet to be fielded systems - we can't sell that to anyone. The hull is solid enough to make into a nice Corvette with a phased-array radar and MK-41 - kind of a mini-Arleigh Burke. Now that can break things and kill people. The other thing is just requirement hoops from the Pentagon. Hey, we just work here. Don't blame us.'
Boats
Um, Boats, might this have done better in the other half of the HULL
.The concept could work. Don't blame us if the purchaser is on crack...we make it to the customer's orders.
I would agree that a corvette style of vessel is probably what is needed. That or a torpedo boat destroyer. Crewing is going to be a major issue for the USN. The USN has institutional experience set that does not allow for multi tasks being proformed by the same person. (note, this is NOT a slag, but a statement of operational practices). This means that there is a requirement for extensive changes to manning principals compared with, say, a Burke or a Tico.
I will ask what should be the basic principals: Mission ? Range to do mission ? Speed requried to do mission ? Weapons to do mission ?
That is what the first questions to ask are. If a range of 1000 NM is enough to do the mission, and a speed of 36 kts, with 150 ton of weapons...make a ship that will fit those issues. Weapon weight (and I would include sensors in weapons weight for this purpose) is the "cargo" of the ship. If 50 kts is essential to the mission, then you are looking at ~50 000 HP by probably under 2000 tons. 2 LM2500's, 2 shaft, (C.O.DE.A.G.) To get the range, you are looking at ~400 tons of fuel (that gives a 1 way range of 1000 nm at speed) 1450 tons left for crew (probably around 10 ton/member to 50, giving 500 tons for the crew) 950 tons left to give structure for the weapons systems to hang on, framing, hull, and propulsion system /electrical system. I'd assume based on previous designs, that the ship would end up around 250 ft long, by 15 ft draft, by 30 ft beam (gives 2025 tons of displacement). It would NOT be a fun boat to cross the Atlantic in mid november on. (but rather better than a 35 ton sailing ship!)
Why DE and GT? Because DE allows quietening for other roles than AAW/ASW (ASW and MCM) to be considered on a common platform. DE may also allow less engines to be run at cruise speeds (only 1 DG run to run Hotel load and Propulsion, say up to 14 kts? (given something like 3000 kw DE propulsion motor, with a installed capacity of something like 4500 kw (3x1500kw DG's)
This ship is a single missile/mine away from being a mission kill. That is a trade off to get a ship which uses a crew of 50 or less. Practically, it is the same as most FF(x)'s, in that they are likely combat incapable after a single hit as well. I would not want to use a single one of these as a escort for a convoy. But, given that they _should_ be cheap, they allow the filling of the volume role of the equation. The fact is that by designing for a finite life (probably 20 years), with a absolutely common serial design (make 1, test for 2-3 years, scrap that one, make xx of the production version using the first one + modifications as the guide, make them identicle, including where all the valves, fittings, weapons system mounts go...so that the crew can be exchanged from one to another without moving the ship...far cheaper to send a crew from the US to the gulf via airplane than a whole ship...The whole system costs need to be considered with "little crappy ship" (which I don't take as a bad discription, btw!), to see if the system is worth what the costs would be. Ships like this have a severe advantage over a heavy, in that if you have 3 of them instead of 1 heavy, you CAN be in 3 places at once...and a lot of what we do is presence, not actual combat.
It doesn't mean that the current LCS is a good design. I have my doubts that it is a good design...
James Powell
-
Some thoughts on LCS ect...
1. Define the mission. Mission defines the platform for the mission.
Some of you seem to think that there is no good place for module based systems...but if the mission changes, and the hull is reasonably adaptable to it, then having modules is a really quick way to change things. Basic capability is also required- RAM + 57mm + 4x .50 gives a decent anti pirate boat/warning line boat. If you require a blue water FFG, then a FFG is what should be built. But there are lots of missions where a Corvette is more than adaquate, and a FFG is overkill. For example, MIO...you have to have enough boat for a boarding party + fighting your ship, but that is it...not like a FFG.
2. DC + fight= need more crew than a typical FFG carries. I believe the report on HMCS Ottawa's fire off the coast of Mexico makes that clear. Not 100% that it is declassed yet- even though the event is several years old. Anyway, fighting the ship + serious DC is not going to happen. Either the ship will be mission killed (sheffield) or it will survive without too much DC work, which the off watch engineers can handle. (CF style anyway). If the ship is a mission kill, it doesn't matter how much DC capability it has...just to try and float the tub home anyway.
3. Fuel/range: 5 hrs at flat out will get you 250 miles. That's getting on for as far as a FFG will get in 10 hrs...well...they both will need a tanker afterwards. (1/4-1/8th fuel load for a FFG to do a 10 hr sprint, depending on age) There isn't that many places where 250 NM will not get you most of the way into and out of harms way. I am assuming CODAG for power? Makes sense to me, use LM2500 and a diesel, on a smaller lighter platform than a CPF.
Define the missions that the LCS will fill- I understand it will have a minehunting module, a ASuW module and a SpecWar module (present designs). I would figure mission to be cheaper than a FFG in close- read the gulf.
At least this tub will have more than just a .50
(does ORCA mean anything to you?)James Powell
IDF Hanit, LCS, and Damage Control
in Wardroom
Posted
This article does articulate the problems that the USN and any other navy faces with delagating responsibility on a warship. With a small crew, it is not practical to fight the ship 1 in 2. Given modern standards of care required to retain sailors within a navy, it is very hard to man a ship dense enough to man the required weapons. This problem is going to get worse...mp3 players and cell phones require space...every sailor that is on a ship has a substantial cost function to him or her. Every person you have to train takes both time and money, in the case of a small unit, a quite large portion of the budget can be used to train people if the unit has high turnover.
Basically, I see 16+ hr days for long periods of time, with a lot of stress added into the mix. Combat will suck...which it always has.
Command decision making will have to be given to OTC's rather than the CO of the unit...weapons free will have a rather different meaning to a CO.
The biggest single problem I see is DC evolutions...once a ship is hit in a survivable mode (like IDF Hanit was), then you have a serious problem of fighting the resulting damage. (To float, to fight, to move). Given 4 man firefighting crews, it imposes minimum numbers of crew on a ship, especially if you still have to try and fight the ship.
(and if it isn't a survivable hit, then the decision should be made early to save whoever can be saved...a ship is steel, a crew is not...)
James Powell
(OTC-Officer in Tactical Charge, not here, of necessity, a officer at all...but a senior NCM or Lt (N) with the tactical charge of the unit, the person fighting the ship.)