[Llarry]

An escort carrier in a typhoon (December 1944); fun (NOT!)

[ezaircon4jc]

Originally Posted by Llarry

An escort carrier in a typhoon (December 1944); fun (NOT!)

The problem isn't the roll, it's the rapid change in roll!!

[Llarry]

PCU Kennedy (CVN 79) emergency Diesel generator being installed.

This monster weights 200,000 pounds according to the Facebook caption.

[Llarry]

I posted this first photo in the airplane thread, but seeing the 8-inch guns on the USS Saratoga (CV 3) and her sister the USS Lexington (CV 2) reminds me of how the view of aircraft carriers shifted so dramatically in the 1930s and first year or so of World War II.

The 8-inch gun mounts were anti-ship weapons and leftover from the battleship navy mindset. The original view of aircraft carriers -- and the designation of carriers as beginning with "C" for cruiser -- was that aircraft carriers could, along with the cruisers, find the enemy fleet so that the battleships could engage and destroy it. If the Lex and Sara were scouting, they needed 8-inch guns for self-protection against enemy surface combatants. (The Lexington was lost in 1942, but the Sara's 8-inch turrets were removed and replaced by antaircraft-capable 5-inch mounts like the Essex class had.)

The Navy pilots could foresee the offensive possibilities of carrier aircraft early, but they were still fairly junior and the admirals were all battleship guys. There was a transitional period before World War II when one carrier was part of the Scouting Force along with the cruisers, and the other one was part of the Battle Force with the BBs.

From Pearl Harbor (December 1941) to Midway (June 1942), even the hard-core battleship admirals had to acknowledge that the aircraft carrier and its aircraft had become the primary offensive weapon of the fleet. Both the Battle of the Coral Sea (May 1942) and the Battle of Midway the month after that were carrier battles, as was the attack on Hawaii on December 7, 1941. For the rest of the war, BBs were primarily used to accompany and escort carrier task groups, as they had heavy anti-aircraft armament. And of course BBs, particularly the older, slower ones that couldn't keep up with the carrier task groups, were invaluable in shore bombardment. But there were very few battleship versus battleship duels between Japanese and U.S. ships.

[Llarry]

Battleship turret with three 16-inch guns. Each turret and magazine below are manned by 150 sailors.

[billnchristy]

Between the 16in guns and the engineering spaces, there wasn't a whole lot left of the battleships.

[3798j]

Staying with BB's...check out the size difference between the Colorado class, BB46 USS Maryland and the Iowa class namesake, BB61 USS Iowa...

[Llarry]

Originally Posted by 3798j

Staying with BB's...check out the size difference between the Colorado class, BB46 USS Maryland and the Iowa class namesake, BB61 USS Iowa...

And the only ship bigger would've been the Montana (BB 67) class: one more triple 16-inch turret for a total of four, thicker armor, etc. The tradeoff was about 5 knots less speed, which would have made operations with carrier task groups difficult. All four planned BB 67s were cancelled in 1943. Probably a wise decision, as the Iowas were good enough and the USN got good service out of them for many years.

[Llarry]

The U.S. has a "not-invented-here" and "buy American" mindset but I've long thought that there would be some value in procuring non-nuclear submarines in limited numbers for the U.S. Navy. The Germans make state of the art Diesel-electric submarines with air-independent propulsion (AIP) that can operate submerged without snorkeling for far longer than older Diesel boats. As does Japan.

The premier German submarine design/shipyard firm, HDW, has built Type 212A boats and related designs for a number of navies. The boats are much smaller than U.S. SSNs and have much smaller crews. They also cost much less to buy -- Somewhere in the $600 million range per boat versus the Virginia class SSNs at $3.6 billion each.

Check out some of the numbers:
-- 1,800 tons submerged with 2 decks (U.S. SSN: 8,700 tons with 3 decks)
-- Diesel-electric propulsion plus AIP for an endurance of 18 days without snorkeling; 20 knots max submerged (SSN: Faster, unlimited endurance)
-- 6 21" torpedo tubes (U.S. SSN 4 21" torpedo tubes with more reloads, plus 12-14 vertical launch tubes for cruise missiles)
-- Crew of 27 (Mixed-gender I think) (U.S. SSN crew of 135)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_212A_submarine

HDW has also designed larger boats for some other navies: For instance, the 218SG for Singapore's Navy (second photo) is larger than the 212A.

I presume that an HDW boat could be assembled or partially built in a U.S. yard, although that might impact the cost. I also presume that the Naval Reactors crowd would put up a hell of fight against the procurement of any non-nuclear submarine. The key would be that an SS would be bought in small numbers and useful for training U.S. Navy forces in ASW; it would NOT be used for high-speed transits or long deployments and the like. There is simply no substitute for an SSN for many functions and a conventional boat would not be procured in lieu of nuclear boats.

[Llarry]

Originally Posted by Llarry

As does Japan.

The latest Japanese class of Diesel-electric submarine apparently does not have AIP; the innovation is that it has lithium-ion main batteries. It's also far larger than the German Type 212A at 3,000 tons and I believe has 3 decks. The crew numbers 70.

Japan has traditionally never made military sales to other countries, so adopting a Japanese-designed attack boat would be ground-breaking.

The boats of the class are named after whales; the class leader is Taigei (Great whale) (SS-513).

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

[Llarry]

On the subject of submarines, the improved Block V Virginia-class nuclear-powered subs for the U.S. Navy are under construction. They feature a major modification: an 83-foot longer hull (lengthened from 377 feet to 460 feet) to accommodate four Virginia payload modules, in addition to the two modules in the bow section of earlier boats.

The Virginia payload module is an 87-inch diameter cylinder that has seven vertical launch tubes for cruise missiles. Six modules x 7 Tomahawk missiles each = 42 cruise missiles, in addition to the four 21-inch torpedo tubes.

This large increase in cruise missile capacity is due to the impending retirement of the four Ohio-class SSGNs (ex-SSBNs) which feature a capacity for 154 cruise missiles each. The Block V SSNs will help compensate for the reduction in cruise missile capacity in the fleet once the SSGNs are gone. The first of the longer Block Vs will be the Arizona (SSN 803), which should join the fleet in 2025-2026.

Since the payload module is modular, there is the possibility of replacing it with other options: larger diameter missiles, etc.

In other USN submarine news, the Navy has run out of state names for their attack submarines; that's a lot of submarines! The Arizona will be the last SSN named after a state. Instead, some names of famous submarines from the past will be resurrected -- the first will be Barb (SSN 804).

By the way, it is still not clear to me what submarines the Royal Australian Navy will buy. Some sources say they will get a couple of used USN SSNs. For the longer term, I think they are likely to buy submarines jointly designed in cooperation with the UK (and US?)

[TTM0TION]

Just finished Blind Man's Bluff, so all the sub content is peaking my interest. That latest Virginia is something else.

[Llarry]

Originally Posted by TTM0TION

Just finished Blind Man's Bluff, so all the sub content is peaking my interest. That latest Virginia is something else.

Having been involved in some of the activities addressed in the book, I read it with interest when it first came out. There was some official guidance at the time: "Do not comment on the book."

If you found Blind Man's Bluff interesting, check out a book by Norman Polmar called Project Azorian, about the CIA project to recover a nuclear-armed Soviet submarine from the sea floor in the mid-Pacific.

[Llarry]

Here's a new photo of the Chinese PLA Navy conventional aircraft carrier under construction equipped with catapults and arresting gear, which is a big step forward for the PRC.

[Llarry]

This is a pretty cool photo of the USS Michael Murphy (DDG 112) in dry dock with her crew standing behind their ship. I'm not sure what's going on with the two colors of hard hats; maybe white for officers and chiefs and blue for the rest of the crew?

For the uninitiated, the large outlet above the MICHAEL is for the towed sonar array. The two smaller side-by-side outlets are for the NIXIE torpedo defense system.

[Llarry]

The first Columbia class ballistic missile submarine, SSBN 826, is under construction and the second (of 12 total) has been authorized.

The 826 class is similar in size to the current SSBNs but has 16 missile launch tubes instead of 24. According to Wikipedia, it will have only two torpedo tubes.

Basic specs: 560 feet long, 43 foot hull diameter, 20,000 tons-plus.

Changes from earlier SSBNs include X stern planes (apparently X planes are The Next Big Thing for submarines) and electric drive. The missiles will be the same as the existing Trident ballistic missiles.

The UK Royal Navy is also gearing up for a new SSBN class and the plan is to use a similar missile compartment for both nations' boats.

Since there is already a submarine named Columbia (a 688 class fast attack boat) in the fleet, the new SSBN is scheduled to be named District of Columbia. It's possible that the earlier SSN will be retired by the time 826 is commissioned in 2031, in which case I suspect it may drop the "District of" in the name.

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

[JP10]

Larry, what’s your thought on the Navy’s 2 + 1 goal?

[Llarry]

Originally Posted by JP10

Larry, what’s your thought on the Navy’s 2 + 1 goal?

Sorry, JP10, never heard of it. Please elaborate.

[TTM0TION]

Originally Posted by Llarry

Having been involved in some of the activities addressed in the book, I read it with interest when it first came out. There was some official guidance at the time: "Do not comment on the book."

If you found Blind Man's Bluff interesting, check out a book by Norman Polmar called Project Azorian, about the CIA project to recover a nuclear-armed Soviet submarine from the sea floor in the mid-Pacific.

They touch on that in BMB! I'll definitely check it out, thank you much!

[JP10]

My apologies, should have elaborated, I was short on time when posting. The Navy’s goal is 2 Virginia and 1 Columbia new manufacture per year. The intention is to develop the workforce to be able to hit this goal by 2026. I feel that is a aggressive target, but they are definitely dumping money right now to develop suppliers with that in mind. There are even some pretty ridiculous plans out there, like the Barlette Maritime Plan, that talks of the development of new shipyard to support both subarmine repair and new construction. All awhile, AUKUS is moving forward and we will be in no position to support, even if it is just old Virginia class. Not to mention the aggressive goals of SSN(x). We are also going through “the great resignation” in which this with the knowledge are retiring leaving a big gap. I deal with people in their 20s that have absolutely no idea what they are doing in positions just because those entities have no other choice. The goal is to develop qualified trades people to meet the production goal, but there is technical lapse as well. All of such efforts are lead, probably a poor term, by a generation that doesn’t understand the younger generations want to do as little as possible to get by.

I’ve ranted so long I forget what I wanted to ask. How do you thing the US will get past this hurdle? Do you believe that our lack of production when compared against other nations put us at risk? Are over technical upgrades causing vessels in dock for longer periodicities putting us further at risk (hypersonic DDG 1000 missle upgrade)?

Anyways, more so just interested in what you think.

[Llarry]

Originally Posted by JP10

My apologies, should have elaborated, I was short on time when posting. The Navy’s goal is 2 Virginia and 1 Columbia new manufacture per year. The intention is to develop the workforce to be able to hit this goal by 2026. I feel that is a aggressive target, but they are definitely dumping money right now to develop suppliers with that in mind. There are even some pretty ridiculous plans out there, like the Barlette Maritime Plan, that talks of the development of new shipyard to support both subarmine repair and new construction. All awhile, AUKUS is moving forward and we will be in no position to support, even if it is just old Virginia class. Not to mention the aggressive goals of SSN(x). We are also going through “the great resignation” in which this with the knowledge are retiring leaving a big gap. I deal with people in their 20s that have absolutely no idea what they are doing in positions just because those entities have no other choice. The goal is to develop qualified trades people to meet the production goal, but there is technical lapse as well. All of such efforts are lead, probably a poor term, by a generation that doesn’t understand the younger generations want to do as little as possible to get by.

I’ve ranted so long I forget what I wanted to ask. How do you thing the US will get past this hurdle? Do you believe that our lack of production when compared against other nations put us at risk? Are over technical upgrades causing vessels in dock for longer periodicities putting us further at risk (hypersonic DDG 1000 missle upgrade)?

Anyways, more so just interested in what you think.

OK, thanks for the clarification. This is a hot potato in virtually all defense production that I can think of, but shipbuilding is probably the poster child. And I'm afraid you give me too much credit in asking my opinion on how we fix this. One thing that occurs to me is that we need to reorder our priorities on post-high school education to develop more technically-ready tradespeople and fewer liberal arts baccalaureates. But that's not a defense issue; that is a fundamental issue in our society.

I agree that putting the workforce together to accomplish the 2 SSN + 1 SSBN per year is probably unattainable by 2026, particularly if we add in some work in connection with AUKUS. The vibes I'm getting on AUKUS is that it is likely to be more UK-Australia construction but there will be plenty of U.S. design input.

In sum, I'm clueless. I hope they can pull this off!

[Llarry]

Originally Posted by TTM0TION

Just finished Blind Man's Bluff, so all the sub content is peaking my interest. That latest Virginia is something else.

The activities covered in Blind Man's Bluff have been taking place for very many years and continue to this day.

One area of sensitive operations was that involving the USS Parche, a specially modified submarine designed for sea floor operations. The Parche is long gone, but the USS Jimmy Carter (SSN 23) carries on that mission. Very little of the boat's activities are known publicly. That's the thing about submarines; they can leave port, submerge and they are gone to parts unknown, only to return home quite a while later. Where did they go? What did they do? As the saying goes, they could tell us, but then they'd have to kill us. Perhaps many years from now the story can be told in a sequel to Blind Man's Bluff.

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

As discussed in the Wikipedia article, the Carter was specially modified as well; she is 100 feet longer than the other two SSNs of the Seawolf class.