[billnchristy]

It's more the how does 100,000 tons float to me. I forgot the enormity of the flight deck, seeing as how I spent very little time there. I looked over and the top of the super structure of the destroyer was below the flight deck on the carrier, she really is a monster.

[JP10]

Originally Posted by Llarry

A new development on the topic of submarine construction and the goal of building two SSNs and one SSBN per year: The President's budget proposal for aid for Israel and Ukraine also includes $3.4 billion for development of the submarine shipbuilding industrial base. This sounds like a step in the right direction, although a fuller solution would be the addition of a third submarine building location to the existing two at New London and Newport News, both of which are delivering new boats way behind schedule. The added burden of AUKUS may add to the problem if the U.S. yards are expected to build SSNs (or components) for Australia.

Given the chaos in Washington D.C. these days, it's anybody's guess as to whether that $3.4 billion will actually happen.

Yeah this was actually released Friday, I had read it then. That’s just in addition to what has already be allocated to building the supplier base. There are tons of aggressive plans out there to meet the goal. Look up the Bartlett Maritime Plan. Team of retired ring knockers trying to open new repair facilities and even new shipyards. If only it were that easy, though, with the team they have, I could see them achieving funding to do it as they can “say the right things to convince the right people”. At the end of the day, we are years, maybe a decade, away from meeting the goal. Build rates are currently decreasing rather than increasing.
I can’t say they aren’t trying to make a difference, I also can’t say the manner in which we are going about it is the right one. Time will tell.

[Llarry]

The Australian firm AUSTAL specializes in catamarans built of aluminum. Some years ago, they attracted interest from the U.S. military and some 19 ships have been built or ordered for the Military Sealift Command as Expeditionary Fast Transports (16 units) or Expeditionary Medical Ships (3 units) by their U.S. subsidiary, AUSTAL USA.

As reflected in the designation, these ships are fast; they are Diesel-powered with waterjets and can do more than 40 knots depending on the sea state. The medical variants are slightly larger and slower. As MSC ships, they are civilian-manned with a crew of 20-40 but can embark military personnel in a transport role or medical role. For short trips they can carry several hundred troops. They have a large cargo bay between the catamaran hulls that can accommodate vehicles or bulky loads. As can be seen in the photos, they have a crane aft to transfer loads to other craft and a folding ramp for use when pierside. A helicopter landing area adds to their usefulness.

The ships are not armed but have provisions for the mounting of several .50 caliber machine guns.

The U.S. Marine Corps is always interested in ships of this type but criticizes the design as being unsuitable to easily launch amphibious vehicles into the water.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spearh...fast_transport

[Llarry]

An extract from the Congressional Budget Office report on the U. S. Navy's shipbuilding program, including the cover sheet of the report and two pages on submarine construction, including the impact of providing submarines to Australia.

TL;DR: It appears that we can't get there from here. Two nuclear-propelled attack submarines are authorized each year and the shipyards can't build that many. Factor in the additional workload of building ballistic missile submarines (The Navy's #1 shipbuilding priority) AND providing attack submarines to Australia (in some mix of used and new) and the two existing submarine builders simply can't do the job.

[Llarry]

Since several folks have expressed interest in submarines, here are some details about the internals of U.S. nuclear-powered submarines. Decent photos are tough to come by -- they don't call it the Silent Service for nothing -- but here are some open source pictures.

The first illustration is a cutaway of an SSN -- looks like a Los Angeles class boat to me.

#2 is the diving station in the control room of the USS Seawolf (SSN 21).

#3 is a shot of the rear of the torpedo room of a Virginia class SSN, with a couple of Mk 48 torpedoes visible at left.

#4 is a photo of the crew's mess on the USS Ohio (SSGN 726). I can't vouch for the engineering spaces aft, but this is probably the "roomiest" or least-cluttered space on the boat.

[ezaircon4jc]

Originally Posted by Llarry

Since several folks have expressed interest in submarines, here are some details about the internals of U.S. nuclear-powered submarines. Decent photos are tough to come by -- they don't call it the Silent Service for nothing -- but here are some open source pictures.

The first illustration is a cutaway of an SSN -- looks like a Los Angeles class boat to me.

#2 is the diving station in the control room of the USS Seawolf.

#3 is a shot of the rear of the torpedo room of a Virginia class SSN, with a couple of Mk 48 torpedoes visible at left.

#4 is a photo of the crew's mess on the USS Ohio (SSGN 726). I can't vouch for the engineering spaces aft, but this is probably the "roomiest" or least-cluttered space on the boat.

Masks on a sub...

[billnchristy]

We had an S8G engine room at NPTU Ballston Spa, it was a concrete tube made to represent the size of the boat. I was shocked at how much space there was, especially compared to the S5G I trained on.

The other engine room, at MARF, was a WWII destroyer engine room so it was pretty spacious, but not at all representative of a submarine space.

[Llarry]

The current U.S. Navy budget submission, not yet approved by Congress, requests authorization to buy two guided-missile destroyers (DDGs) at a cost of 2.2 billion each. A lot of the cost is in electronics of one kind or another. The SPY-6 radar costs 200 million per ship; the accompanying Aegis weapons system is 80 million each. The SLQ-32(V)7 electronic warfare system costs 80 million per ship. The vertical launching missile system costs 55 million per ship -- the forward VLS carries 32 missiles and the after VLS carries 64. The 5" gun mount forward costs 22 million per ship. The Navy has 73 of these ships in commission and many more building or authorized -- the planned total is 104 ships. (Note, however, that the first ship of the class was commissioned inn 1991 and the last of 104 will be commissioned well into the 2030s; with a planned service life of 40 years, the earliest DDGs may be retired before the last ones are in service.)

The first two photos give an overall view of the USS Jack H. Lucas (DDG 125), the newest DDG. I'm unable to find a decent photo of the SPY-6 radar, although the view from behind shows two of the four radar antennas on either side of the mast. The third photo shows the gun and the forward missile launcher and the final photo shows the upgraded electronic warfare system fitted to DDG 125 and subsequent destroyers.

These are expensive ships! But the Navy is retiring its Aegis cruisers and these latest DDGs will assume their duties in protecting aircraft carrier strike groups etc.

[billnchristy]

I don't think any of my pictures show any more but here are some pictures of the Destroyer that was moored with the GW when we visited.

[Llarry]

In addition to guided-missile destroyers, the U.S. Navy is building a large number of nuclear-powered attack submarines. The current class being built is the Virginia class, with 22 boats currently in service and an additional 16 authorized or under construction. The 2024 budget calls for two more Virginia class boats; the current price tag is $4 billion each. Navy plans call for a total of 51 boats of this class.

The USS Virginia (SSN 774) entered service in 2004 and additional boats soon followed. The boats are built by General Dynamics Electric Boat in Groton CT and by Newport News in Virgina. I've previously discussed the difficulties with the production rate of these submarines; see previous posts on the issue.

Like many series-produced Navy ships, the Virginia class SSNs have been improved over the years. The early boats have a spherical sonar array in the bow whereas later boats have gone to an improved large aperture bow sonar array in a horseshoe shape. The whole class has other sonar equipment, including side arrays and towed arrays.

Likewise the older conventional single screw has been replaced by a propulsor (see drawing).

The most recently authorized boats have been lengthened considerably -- from 377 feet to 460 feet -- to incorporate additional vertical-launch missile tubes. These have not yet joined the fleet.

One of the 2024 boats is planned to be further modified to conduct seabed operations, which like many submarine activities, are highly classified.

A few basic specs:
-- 377 or 460 feet long
-- 34-foot diameter hull
-- speed submerged "over 25 knots" (35?)
-- max operating depth classified but likely well over 1000 feet
-- Crew of 135
-- Armed with four torpedo tubes and vertical-launch missile tubes with a capacity for 12 cruise missiles (earlier boats) or 40 missiles (longer boats)

This is the class of SSN that is likely to be transferred or built for the Royal Australian Navy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia-class_submarine

[Llarry]

Originally Posted by Llarry

This is the class of SSN that is likely to be transferred or built for the Royal Australian Navy.

Per Wikipedia, the plan for the RAN is to get their first Virginia class SSN in 2033; this first one will be a former U.S. Navy ship (Certified Pre-Owned? ). The RANs second and third Virginia class boats will follow in 2036 and 2039; it is not clear to me whether these will be new-construction or used boats. These three Virginia-class SSNs will be followed by five UK-Australia design (AUKUS) SSNs. With the possibility of another one or two Virginia-class boats if the UK-Aus construction is delayed. In any event, there will likely be a number of systems shared between the U.S. SSNs and the AUKUS boats.

[Llarry]

There are currently only two submarine weapons in use by the U.S. Navy (excluding the Trident nuclear ballistic missiles carried by missile boats): The Mark 48 heavyweight torpedo and the UGM-109 Tomahawk cruise missile. U.S. submarines formerly also could carry mines, but these have been retired.

The Mark 48 torpedo was introduced in 1972 but has been progressively improved; the current version is the Mk 48 Mod 7 CBASS (Common Broadband Advanced Sonar System) introduced in 2008. The Mk 48 is 21 inches (533mm) in diameter and is 19 feet long. It weighs about 3,700 pounds. While performance data is classified, it is generally considered to have a max speed of 55 knots, an operating depth of up to 2,500 feet and a max range of over 30 nautical miles.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_48_torpedo

The UGM-109 Tomahawk cruise missile is similar to that used by surface combatants but is encapsulated for launch by submerged submarines. It is about the same size as the torpedo. In land-attack form it has a range of over 1,000 miles and flies at a speed of Mach 0.74 and an altitude of 30-50 meters above the sea/ground. The anti-ship version has a range of 250 miles. The warhead weighs 1,000 pounds. It can be launched from torpedo tubes or the vertical launch tubes fitted to most current submarines.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomahawk_(missile)

[billnchristy]

I forgot to mention, during our engine room tour the guide told us about the fuel consumption of the Wisconsin it was a large number of gallons to the mile but he said he did the calculation and it worked out to 26 feet per gallon at 15 knots.

Take that Prius!

[Llarry]

Wisconsin's sister USS Missouri in drydock in the 1980s from the front. Pretty imposing view, though perhaps not quite as impressive as a CVN.

[Boomer 2019]

That's a sexy beast. The Iowa class to this day remain the best looking, and the most bad ass BB's ever.

[Llarry]

Originally Posted by Boomer 2019

That's a sexy beast. The Iowa class to this day remain the best looking, and the most bad ass BB's ever.

It would be interesting to speculate on a modern battleship: Modern propulsion system (nuke? gas turbine?) Lots of missiles. Big guns still? (A shell costs a lot less than a missile.) Heavy armor still? The cost would be astronomical, of course. A modern version might not be as attractive as an Iowa, though.

[billnchristy]

I've kinda wondered why the Navy hasn't used a MLRS type system as an alternative to 1m per shot missiles. They have pretty good range these days and you could basically set them up like turrets with multiple stacks. Maybe 2 MLRS and one 16" turret for the hard stuff.

I can see, after touring Wisconsin, why we went away from the big guns. Consider that each turret basically reaches to the bottom of the ship with its magazine and loading components, while Tomahawk and harpoon launchers are just big boxes mounted on the deck, you can fit an ass-load of those things on.

[Llarry]

The fifth and sixth Iowa class battleships -- Illinois (BB 65) and Kentucky (BB 66) -- were never completed. The Illinois was cancelled in 1945 when just 22% complete and was broken up in 1958. The Kentucky's construction was suspended in 1946 and resumed in 1948; she was launched in 1950 when 73% complete but construction was again suspended.

Kentucky's bow was used to repair USS Wisconsin (BB 64) in 1956 after a collision, and her main turbines were used to power the fast replenishment ships USS Sacramento (AOE 1) and USS Camden (AOE 2) in the 1960s.

Here's a photo of Kentucky under construction and one of the unfinished Kentucky being prepared for removal of her turbines before being scrapped in 1958.

[lakefront]

Was just reading that the "operation" to graft Kentucky's bow onto Wisconsin was completed in just 16 days. And it made Wisconsin 2 feet longer than any other Iowa class BB, which then made it the largest battleship ever in the US Navy.

[billnchristy]

She should've been the longest anyway, they always add a little to each consecutive ship...or tend to.

[Boomer 2019]

Originally Posted by Llarry

It would be interesting to speculate on a modern battleship: Modern propulsion system (nuke? gas turbine?) Lots of missiles. Big guns still? (A shell costs a lot less than a missile.) Heavy armor still? The cost would be astronomical, of course. A modern version might not be as attractive as an Iowa, though.

I don't think there will ever be another true BB built. It would just be too much cost for too little return. The defining armament for a BB is very large caliber rifles (guns) and there is no place for weapons like these in todays Naval environment.

Ship v ship gunfighting requires getting too close to the target and putting your own ship and crew at great risk. Missiles can perform more accurately from stand off distances.

Shore bombardment also requires putting the ship at great risk. The max range of the 16'' 50 Caliber Mk-7 guns is approx. 23 miles. Actually the max effective range is somewhat less as accuracy decreases with an increase in target range. So, even if you drive the ship up on the beach, which isn't going to happen, the effective range of your target is limited to only a relative few miles.

No one is going to advocate putting a crew into an almost certain retaliatory environment. All potential enemies possess very effective ship killing missiles, and a "new' BB would be a sitting duck. Everything that guns can do can be done better, and at less risk by missiles which can be carried and deployed by lots of different Naval vessels.

Sigh. The BB's of the Twentieth century have been consigned to museums and memory like the magnificent Naval sailing ships that preceded them. We remember them, marvel at them, and honor them and their crews.

[Llarry]

Originally Posted by Boomer 2019

I don't think there will ever be another true BB built. It would just be too much cost for too little return.

Agree. My post was more wondering if there was a place in today's maritime environment for a very large surface combatant.