The swarm navy (split from: The Defence Budget)

[Kirkhill]

Careful Gents! This is starting to get entertaining. 

;D op:

 

[Eye In The Sky]

The Wave glider would be useless without the ability to get sensors below the sonic layer depth.

Then that data has to be transmitted back, which is quite significant.  Who monitors it?  Do we get auto detect software?

People don't like it when you inject stuff like this into conversations! 

 

[Kirkhill]

At various times I have inferred that I am seen as situating the estimate in order to justify consideration of an alternative course of action based on a piece of new kit.

It was with interest that I read this line in the Maritime Engineering Journal edition posted here.

http://navy.ca/forums/threads/76442/post-1483531.html#msg1483531

As the Canadian Surface Combatant (CSC) Project
moves toward implementation, a key criterion
being assessed for selection of a design reference
point is accommodation. While the original Statement of
Requirement (SOR) called for 255 core crew and mission
personnel, it is now widely accepted that the available hull
designs cannot accommodate this number. The RCN and
PMO are going through a detailed analysis of assessing
what operational impacts are felt when you start shaving
down the number of personnel in the Watch and
Station Bill.

Bodies 1
Duties 2
Ship 3

It seems peculiar.

Meanwhile, having discovered that nobody is building ships in the 4000 to 6000 tonne range with "core crews" that size, a rethink is/was required - which, I am guessing, led to the Montreal X-Ship Trials

http://www.navy-marine.forces.gc.ca/en/news-operations/news-view.page?doc=hmcs-montreal-begins-first-deployment-as-x-ship/iv3fd860

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Maybe cut some of the fat out of RCN HQs and use those savings and pers for operational billets.  We always seem to be cutting muscle, not fat. 

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Compared to everyone else, the RCN HQs are modest.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

I didn't realize that, so that's nice to know.  However, if there is any fat, I still think that should be trimmed first.

I know...day dreaming like that is never really productive.  ;D

 

[Lumber]

Compared to everyone else, the RCN HQs are modest.

You're talking about the metaphorical fat right? Not the literal fat?

 

[SeaKingTacco]

You're talking about the metaphorical fat right? Not the literal fat?

OK- you have me there.

 

[a_majoor]

This one's for Chris. The idea of a pykrete carrier may not jell with the "Swarm" idea, but commenter "Goat Guy" suggests that building ships out of cheap materials like ferroconcrete would be just as plausible, and probably much more feasible.

http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2015/04/churchill-pykrete-carrier-would-have.html

There's something really awesome about the idea of building a gargantuan super-carrier out of a synthetic iceberg. Just kind of breathtaking. Thank, Brian Wang… whilst this may not be “the next big future”, it certainly was “the last big boondoggle”.

Or, to put it differently, when you think about it, what exactly was the big savings that an immense hull made out of iced paper pulp supposed to be? Even in 1942, we were making “ferro-concrete”⁴ out of a common sedimentary rock¹, left-over iron smelting slag² and endless streams of rebar³. It was cheap. Durable. Didn't melt. Did I mention cheap?

I guess in WW2, there being lots of paper pulp and not so much iron, lots of water, and not so much oil to make cement⁵, big ideas and even bigger budgets, such a contemplation could be explored. All the rest of the iron, concrete, cement, was going into building weapons, roadways, airports, conventional carriers, battleships, destroyers and the endless stream of PT-boats.

Ice, wood. Lordy.

GoatGuy
_______
¹ limestone - hydrated calcium carbonate CaCO₂ and dolomite MgCO₂
² smelting slag - was found to be remarkably durable for salt-water ferroconcrete.
³ rebar - reinforcement steel circular bar. Made from low-quality steel, but is dirt cheap.
⁴ ferro-concrete - concrete copiously reinforced on all shear axes with rebar³
⁵ cement-making fuel - is almost always either low-sulfur crude oil, nat gas or coke

… because higher levels of sulfur in the burning-fuel exhaust gasses (which for efficiency pass directly thru the clinker-bed of limestone and dolomite) markedly decrease strength of the portland cement thus roasted. Gotta keep the sulphur out.

If one of the main issues with modern military forces is the enormous cost of the actual hardware, then perhaps looking at alternatives to traditional building methods might be another focus of where we can go to increase the numbers of platforms. While casting hulls out of concrete is probably not the way to go, we do live in an age where material science and technology are changing the way we are able to get the job done.