The swarm navy (split from: The Defence Budget)

[jollyjacktar]

Chris,  the main difference between civilian sailing and Naval sailing is of course the possibility of combat.  Sure, if you're just pottering from Port to Port on your Maresk rounds, at a steady state of speed, who needs numbers?  You can get away with a small-ish crew and accomplish the company's business.  We're not in the business, business.  We're in the war business and whatever else our political masters say we are.  You're comparing apples to oranges.

I agree, the meat interfaces cost a great deal over the hardware.

On the small craft MTB thing.  I knew an man who involved in the battles of what was going to replace the gate vessels for the reserves back when. He said there were two camps, those who wanted gun boats and those who wanted sweepers. As it turned out the guns went down to defeat and we have the MCDVs.  I would have loved to see gun boats in the fleet, you bet.

 

[Kirkhill]

OK.  I'll bite. Define the War Business.

What capabilities do you provide? What effects do you deliver?

 

[jollyjacktar]

Simply put, warships are ultimately designed to deliver death and destruction upon the enemy, just as tanks, fighters and artillery tubes are and not to deliver sea cans for business X to business Y for a profit.  And if they do get into a combat situation with an aggressor, they need the personnel to repair any damage that might result from same.  That, takes people, period. 

Like any sailor, I earnestly hope the reason for having a warship never comes to pass.  Cuz someone might lose an eye, like Nelson, then need side parties.

 

[Kirkhill]

JJT -  Stipulating the role is to deliver death and destruction.

So you are transporting the means by which death and destruction can be visited on the heads of the unbelievers.  Basically, in the modern world that means lots of HE.  Which can be transported in seacans.  And which can be launched from seacans.  Or from a variety of decks.

You are providing a transport service (and a warehousing service - those days that you are not pressing buttons). 

I take issue about the need to save the ship.  It only becomes an issue, in my mind, if there is no other option for the sailors aboard otherwise I would abandon the ship and transfer the survivors to another hull.  The only other reason I can see to spend effort and lives trying to save the ship is because you have so much capital invested in it.  On the other hand money spent on systems designed to make her more survivable will increase her cost making it more imperative that she be saved.  Which necessitates spending more money.

Take your 225 Iroquois berths, spread them out amongst 15x 15-man "capsules" like the DeHavilland Boats and add in a bunch of autonomous barges carrying seacans full of self-unloading HE.  Which is the more survivable, combat effective and cost effective force?
 

 

[jollyjacktar]

JJT -  Stipulating the role is to deliver death and destruction.

So you are transporting the means by which death and destruction can be visited on the heads of the unbelievers.  Basically, in the modern world that means lots of HE.  Which can be transported in seacans.  And which can be launched from seacans.  Or from a variety of decks.

You are providing a transport service (and a warehousing service - those days that you are not pressing buttons). 

Then with that reasoning, a tank for instance is just a tracked delivery truck, or a F-18 is a skinny cargo aircraft for that matter

I take issue about the need to save the ship.  It only becomes an issue, in my mind, if there is no other option for the sailors aboard otherwise I would abandon the ship and transfer the survivors to another hull.  The only other reason I can see to spend effort and lives trying to save the ship is because you have so much capital invested in it.  On the other hand money spent on systems designed to make her more survivable will increase her cost making it more imperative that she be saved.  Which necessitates spending more money.

OK.  Don't save the ship.  Let her burn to the waterline and get everyone off.  That's great if you have a massive fleet of hundreds and hundreds of ships that are regularly back filled as they go bang.  Same for the crewmembers who don't survive the event.  Good luck in attracting people down the road if you're just going to treat them like a disposable lighter like that.  I am quite sure that after experiencing hitting the life boats once, I won't be so keen to try it again.  But we don't have a shit load of hulls to off load any survivors onto and continue the campaign, therefore we need to fight to keep what we have afloat and in business.  Therefore, save the ship.  Besides, your train of thought goes against all naval traditions regardless of service.  As Doc Hatton continually bellowed to us when he was my old man, "Ship, Shipmates, Self"

Take your 225 Iroquois berths, spread them out amongst 15x 15-man "capsules" like the DeHavilland Boats and add in a bunch of autonomous barges carrying seacans full of self-unloading HE.  Which is the more survivable, combat effective and cost effective force?

If was a young man again, sign me up.  I have always liked the mosquito navy and would have been thrilled to be part of a MTB/MGB crew. 

 

[Kirkhill]

JJT - WRT tanks and F18s as trucks: Yep!

WRT lack of hundreds of hulls - see comments on "mosquito navy"  (quite like that reference).

 

[Kirkhill]

But the world is full of fat dumb targets.  And those targets won't go away.  Why put sailors lives at risk by manning them?  Why cluster all your sailors into a small number of targets when it is possible to spread them out over a larger number of targets from which they can monitor and attack more threats?

 

[jmt18325]

But can you fit the weapons systems that you need on those small targets?

 

[Kirkhill]

Sorry - thought I was still in the politics thread ...

:clubinhand:

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Build the ship around the weapons.  Add the minimum crew.  You will end up with a smaller ship.

We do: It's called a frigate, and it has a minimal crew.

Also, not all ships need to carry all weapons so long as the task force is capable of managing all threats.

Well, none of your dinky toys 100 tons ship (260 tons actually, if the Bras D'or is your measuring stick) can carry some of the stuff we need to manage some of the threats.


BTW: concerning HMCS Bras D'or, she was never, ever, at any time, considered for anything else but ASW duties.

The Bras D'or was an experiment at a time when the West had to decide how to deal with a new threat to the resupply of Europe: nuclear submarines that could run faster underwater than the escort ships of the day. The idea was that she would sprint, dip a small sonar (not a VDS - too big for her - but something akin to a helicopter dipping sonar), sprint again to get closer, then dip, then move, etc. until she could drop a light torpedo on the submarine. The experiment was cancelled for two reasons. First, she went on a Bermuda ex deployment, with her full crew of twenty-five (so small, in fact that she did not carry any cooks - the meals were all frozen "TV diner" type and the crew prepared their own meals using, get this, some of the first micro-wave ovens in the world , pre commercialization of the process). On that ex, she carried no weapons system nor any dipping sonar, but merely simulated how she would operate. It was a disaster as the crew became too fatigued to operate properly after two weeks of operation. Second, she had short legs when she sprinted a lot, which would obviously happen when engaged in escort duties, and, as demonstrated in basin tests, could not refuel alongside (because, like a small fish, she got "reeled-in" whenever the tension was put on the high wire). That meant refuelling astern only - not the best of choices.

She was finally done in for by a combination of world crisis: the first oil crisis of the early 70's, which meant she was too expansive to run, and technological developments in the ASW fight: the foreseeable entry in service of towed away sonars and the general use of ASW helicopters onboard escort ships.   

 

[FSTO]

And Chris, the minimal crew experiment with the USN's LCSs has been their Achilles heel. OGBD is right, the minimal ship for us is the Frigate.

 

[Kirkhill]

I enjoy the discussion even though the outcome is the same every time.....

 

[a_majoor]

We do: It's called a frigate, and it has a minimal crew.

Well, none of your dinky toys 100 tons ship (260 tons actually, if the Bras D'or is your measuring stick) can carry some of the stuff we need to manage some of the threats.


BTW: concerning HMCS Bras D'or, she was never, ever, at any time, considered for anything else but ASW duties.

The Bras D'or was an experiment at a time when the West had to decide how to deal with a new threat to the resupply of Europe: nuclear submarines that could run faster underwater than the escort ships of the day. The idea was that she would sprint, dip a small sonar (not a VDS - too big for her - but something akin to a helicopter dipping sonar), sprint again to get closer, then dip, then move, etc. until she could drop a light torpedo on the submarine. The experiment was cancelled for two reasons. First, she went on a Bermuda ex deployment, with her full crew of twenty-five (so small, in fact that she did not carry any cooks - the meals were all frozen "TV diner" type and the crew prepared their own meals using, get this, some of the first micro-wave ovens in the world , pre commercialization of the process). On that ex, she carried no weapons system nor any dipping sonar, but merely simulated how she would operate. It was a disaster as the crew became too fatigued to operate properly after two weeks of operation. Second, she had short legs when she sprinted a lot, which would obviously happen when engaged in escort duties, and, as demonstrated in basin tests, could not refuel alongside (because, like a small fish, she got "reeled-in" whenever the tension was put on the high wire). That meant refuelling astern only - not the best of choices.

She was finally done in for by a combination of world crisis: the first oil crisis of the early 70's, which meant she was too expansive to run, and technological developments in the ASW fight: the foreseeable entry in service of towed away sonars and the general use of ASW helicopters onboard escort ships. 

Bras D'or was also considered a technology demonstrator, combining various ideas like hydrofoils, supercavitating props, using elaborate gearboxes to combine power from gas turbine and diesel engines for both low and high speed operations etc. I remember reading a book on the Bras D'or which suggested that any ship based on her design would be larger and more capable (although I really have no idea how much "larger" a hydrofoil escort would need to be). There are pretty hard limits to how big a hydrofoil can be built before the hydrofoils overwhelm the design, and some of the systems trialed on Bras D'or (like the gearboxes) would need major revisions or changed totally to make the ship more effective and reliable.

It is curious, however to compare a WWII era "Flower class" Corvette to what is now considered a "minimal" ship. While the Flowers were certainly not comfortable, they were considered effective for their role and cheap enough to churn out throughout the war period. Perhaps this is the model that is being suggested; small warships with "enough" punch to operate on their own or in small groups, but capable of being networked into larger naval task forces. The idea of modular weapons pods based on ISO containers is interesting enough to be given some consideration, although for myself I would suggest this is more appropriate as a form of "deck cargo" for merchant ships sailing in convoy, networked into the larger task force array to provide coverage against things like sea skimming missiles or local protection for the merchant ship itself. Modular arrays have been suggested and even tested on ships as diverse as the "Sea Slice" (another unconventional high speed ship, a 21rst century Bras D'or if you will) and the LCS concept. I suspect the extra structure of quick connects, bracing and conduits to allow for changing "containers" is actually detrimental for smaller ships as a percentage of their structural weight, which is why the idea has not been adopted, despite the rather attractive prospects being able to swap out systems and weapons could offer.

 

[Lumber]

But the world is full of fat dumb targets.  And those targets won't go away.  Why put sailors lives at risk by manning them?  Why cluster all your sailors into a small number of targets when it is possible to spread them out over a larger number of targets from which they can monitor and attack more threats?

I've actually pondered a fair bit about this idea. Our ships carry very few missiles aboard them, and they can't reload at sea. So we spend all that money training and deploying a ship, and if shit hits the fan, she's out of missiles after 1, maybe 2, engagements, and has to spend the next 2 months out of action, because that's how long it would take to get back to Canada, re-arm, and come back (actually I'm sure if shit was really hitting the fan, we'd fly additional ammo to somewhere close like Italy or maybe even Diego Garcia sand reload there.. but still...). US Ships do carry large number of missiles, but they are mostly Anti-Air and Land-Attack. The flight IIA Arliegh-Burkes, for example, had their Harpoons removed, so they actually carry no anti-ship missiles at all!

To compound matters, out of the 84 unit-strong American CRUDES [Cruiser/Destroyer] force, an eye-raising 34 of them – a good 40 percent – are not even armed with the Harpoon and hence do not have a dedicated ASuW capability whatsoever. The 34 ships in question are the Flight IIA Arleigh Burke-class destroyers that were built from the keel up without an anti-ship weapon, most of them having been conceived and constructed during the late 1990s and the early 2000s when the prospect of a sea-control threat emerging appeared remote. All in all, a good portion of the U.S. surface fleet is armed with only eight relatively short-ranged ASCMs; in any confrontation with a potential adversary in the mold of China, the Americans might invariably find themselves outranged and outgunned.

http://thediplomat.com/2016/03/fixing-the-us-navys-anti-surface-warfare-shortfall/

#ThankTheLordRaytheonForTheSM6

The crux of it is, you can't deploy small ships for long period of time. Small ships don't handle as well in the high seas, and crew fatigue becomes an issue. This may be alleviated in the not-do-distant future, when our ship's do truly become automated; but, until then, if you are going to project power, you need to have large crews to conduct preventative maintenance around the clock without burning out.

An example of you idea would be IRAN. They have a huge fleet of small fast attack craft armed with everything from machine guns and rocket launchers to anti-ship missiles. This works great for them, because they aren't interested in projecting power much further than their territorial waters. They can afford to have a large number of small attack craft, because they won't stray far from home port on any given day. But if an enemy fleet comes near, they would be swarmed by the large number of them.

 

[Halifax Tar]

I've actually pondered a fair bit about this idea. Our ships carry very few missiles aboard them, and they can't reload at sea. So we spend all that money training and deploying a ship, and if crap hits the fan, she's out of missiles after 1, maybe 2, engagements, and has to spend the next 2 months out of action, because that's how long it would take to get back to Canada, re-arm, and come back (actually I'm sure if crap was really hitting the fan, we'd fly additional ammo to somewhere close like Italy or maybe even Diego Garcia sand reload there.. but still...). US Ships do carry large number of missiles, but they are mostly Anti-Air and Land-Attack. The flight IIA Arliegh-Burkes, for example, had their Harpoons removed, so they actually carry no anti-ship missiles at all!

I think when you look at the global supply of these missiles you find, if a real high seas protracted war breaks out, big guns become important again for engaging surface and land based target.

 

[Lumber]

I think when you look at the global supply of these missiles you find, if a real high seas protracted war breaks out, big guns become important again for engaging surface and land based target.

Yea, and the additional problem there is, ship's don't have armour anymore, and if you've run out of missiles, you've probably also run out of CIWS ammunition too (and I'm not sure that CIWS can shoot-down naval artillery shells, can it?).

 

[Halifax Tar]

Yea, and the additional problem there is, ship's don't have armour anymore, and if you've run out of missiles, you've probably also run out of CIWS ammunition too (and I'm not sure that CIWS can shoot-down naval artillery shells, can it?).

CIWIS has been adapted to shoot down motor shells on land but I don't know about Naval Artillery.

Funny how things can go full circle eh ?

 

[NavyShooter]

I watched a USN Destroyer re-equip with TLAMs after strikes in Libya.  I think they were averaging one missile canister about every 8 minutes.

The fact that our missiles are NATO Standard items means that we should (SHOULD) be able to replenish while in theater from friendly supplies.  Or, worst-case, we put a bunch of canisters on a C-17 and fly them over.  By the time the ship arrives in port, the C-17 will have delivered the ammo.

You have to come off-station to re-arm, you do not necessarily have to come out of theater to re-arm.  Big difference.

On the matter of guns....our ships carry enough ammo to reload the CIWS several times over, and I cannot speak to the C-RAM (Counter Mortar/Rocket/Artillery) version of the CIWS that was deployed in AFG/IRQ since I don't know what software mods were put in to get it to do that, but if it meets the criteria and is recognized as a valid target....well...unveto and go for it?

NS

 

[Lumber]

I watched a USN Destroyer re-equip with TLAMs after strikes in Libya.  I think they were averaging one missile canister about every 8 minutes.

The fact that our missiles are NATO Standard items means that we should (SHOULD) be able to replenish while in theater from friendly supplies.  Or, worst-case, we put a bunch of canisters on a C-17 and fly them over.  By the time the ship arrives in port, the C-17 will have delivered the ammo.

You have to come off-station to re-arm, you do not necessarily have to come out of theater to re-arm.  Big difference.

On the matter of guns....our ships carry enough ammo to reload the CIWS several times over, and I cannot speak to the C-RAM (Counter Mortar/Rocket/Artillery) version of the CIWS that was deployed in AFG/IRQ since I don't know what software mods were put in to get it to do that, but if it meets the criteria and is recognized as a valid target....well...unveto and go for it?

NS

Yes, I wouldn't be surprised if CIWS locked up and fired upon a 5" shell.

That being said, it takes a well trained team how long to reload CIWS? 30 mins? How many CIWS rounds would be fired at an incoming volley of a dozen 5" shells? How many rounds can a typical 5" gun hold, and how long does it take them to reload?

Me thinks the guns, thank god the guns, have the edge here.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Me thinks the guns, thank god the guns, have the edge here.

Yup.  Missiles will be awesome for the opening exchanges.  And I doubt our allies will be too willing let us help them deplete their stocks as they go down.

Nothing can say Hello like a 16" shell slamming into the side of a modern frigate.  Even if it went right through the secondary and shock damage would be catastrophic me thinks.

I will always hang on to my dream that the day of BB or big gun ship has not yet come to pass.