Jump to content
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
JohnPJones

How small can the USN go?

102 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Members
286 posts
4,963 battles
1 hour ago, JohnPJones said:

Well sailboats don’t rely on fuel like these vessels would so is an Oiler going to escort them all the way across the Atlantic or pacific.

And if you don't have to haul around a bunch of extra crap like general purpose built boats do, you will get much better range.

1 hour ago, JohnPJones said:

i don’t think we’ll see any battleship sized guns ever again to be honest. Like I said mk71 is probably the best we’ll get.

probably wont, but still for NGS multiple guns are needed.

1 hour ago, JohnPJones said:

 

as for the speed boats being required to pirate ships, you’re right but the navy’s goal is to identify and board the skiffs and/or motherships before they actually attack a ship, because chances are the pirates will be on the ship by the time the navy can respond, even with a helo. Once they’re onboard it becomes a standoff while the pirates hold the crew hostage and try to negotiate a ransom.

so a vessel that can actually cruise from Djibouti up and down the coast of Somalia for a while is actually pretty important...

All the more reason to trim as much extra weight off as possible.  No need for AA guns, missiles, most electronics and all the crap to support that.  Small sip size does not neccesarrily mean small range, Fubuki and Clemson were 2000 tons and 1300 tons respectively and both had greater range than either Arleigh-Burkes or OHP's, not to mention it makes them that much cheaper to operate due to fuel consumption, both on their own and the support necessary to haul the fuel there.

crapthe fact that 1300 ton Clemsons were just fine for escort duties across the Atlantic should prove that small boats are just fine for cruises like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,794 posts
6,734 battles
15 hours ago, Danyir_Amore said:

And if you don't have to haul around a bunch of extra crap like general purpose built boats do, you will get much better range.

probably wont, but still for NGS multiple guns are needed.

All the more reason to trim as much extra weight off as possible.  No need for AA guns, missiles, most electronics and all the crap to support that.  Small sip size does not neccesarrily mean small range, Fubuki and Clemson were 2000 tons and 1300 tons respectively and both had greater range than either Arleigh-Burkes or OHP's, not to mention it makes them that much cheaper to operate due to fuel consumption, both on their own and the support necessary to haul the fuel there.

crapthe fact that 1300 ton Clemsons were just fine for escort duties across the Atlantic should prove that small boats are just fine for cruises like that.

I still think either a SEARAM or phalanx should be kept as well as decoys.

im leaning more towards phalanx since it’s already proven against rockets and pirates tend to carry RPGs

but I’m also envisioning something that will be capable of more than just pirate hunting...hell slightly enlarged versions of the cyclone class can do that duty if MIO is the only mission you’re giving it.

 

im looking at something that will be intended to tangle with enemy corvettes and FACs. Using that for MIO won’t be as much of a waste as using a Burke or even an FFG.

 

for that at least some AAW capability is necessary, maybe as little as a fwd SEARAM and aft phalanx with nulka P/S

a heavier version of the ROKN gumdoksuri class essentially 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
560
[BROOK]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
2,941 posts
8 hours ago, JohnPJones said:

I still think either a SEARAM or phalanx should be kept as well as decoys.

im leaning more towards phalanx since it’s already proven against rockets and pirates tend to carry RPGs

but I’m also envisioning something that will be capable of more than just pirate hunting...hell slightly enlarged versions of the cyclone class can do that duty if MIO is the only mission you’re giving it.

 

im looking at something that will be intended to tangle with enemy corvettes and FACs. Using that for MIO won’t be as much of a waste as using a Burke or even an FFG.

 

for that at least some AAW capability is necessary, maybe as little as a fwd SEARAM and aft phalanx with nulka P/S

a heavier version of the ROKN gumdoksuri class essentially 

So...just build Corvettes is what you're saying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
286 posts
4,963 battles
9 hours ago, JohnPJones said:

I still think either a SEARAM or phalanx should be kept as well as decoys.

im leaning more towards phalanx since it’s already proven against rockets and pirates tend to carry RPGs

And Pirates don't engage anyone that is even remotely a threat, the Rpg's are for show.  They won't go after a ship that simply has a visible DShK on it.  Pirates aren't there to fight they are trying to make money, and that's why you don't need anything other than a gun to shoot across their bows and scare them into surrender.

Quote

but I’m also envisioning something that will be capable of more than just pirate hunting...hell slightly enlarged versions of the cyclone class can do that duty if MIO is the only mission you’re giving it.

Yes this is called mission creep and its the biggest problem our military is facing right now.  There is no one that can take us on the planet but our military is too expensive to do all the things we want it to do.  This is in part due to the concept of big expensive jack of all trades ships.  If we want to commit a vessel on an antipiracy cruise we should just pay for what is needed, an engine and a gun and maybe a helicopter.  Instead we have to pay to send hundreds of BMD missiles, Torpedoes, ASW, AAA, Electronic warfare suites, and god knows what else is on those things and everything else that is required to support it all.  Costs increase exponentially with all this extra crap and we don't accomplish anything else for it.

Quote

 

im looking at something that will be intended to tangle with enemy corvettes and FACs. Using that for MIO won’t be as much of a waste as using a Burke or even an FFG.

 

for that at least some AAW capability is necessary, maybe as little as a fwd SEARAM and aft phalanx with nulka P/S

a heavier version of the ROKN gumdoksuri class essentially 

If we want a small ship to fight other small ships, then it should be its own design and have a separate mission set.  It would be slightly less wasteful to use such ships on antipiracy since they wouldn't have other missions in peacetime but it would still be a lot of waste in extra support and personnel costs that wouldn't be necessary.

Essentially what all we need is a glorified yacht with a gun, a few of them.  They should be considered disposable, and either used till they are worn out or if the piracy threat is eliminated (unlikely anytime soon) sold to some third world country as a coastal patrol vessel.  I wouldn't even consider making them fancy enough to warrant being used by our own coast guard after their mission is complete.

Honestly could even dispense with the gun and just use TOW missiles, and if there is gonna be a Helo AGM 114's.

Edited by Danyir_Amore

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
115
[C-1]
[C-1]
Members
437 posts
7,510 battles

If it's for anti-piracy, I'd go with between 250 tons to 600t.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_World_War_II_ships_of_less_than_1000_tons

250 is very small for having something that can deal with a variety of issues, but perfectly capable of being setup to do one specific task.

Basically, a floating gun platform with a single weapon system; probably a CIWS as defense and more than likely as a main gun. RPG's aren't an issue as long as you don't get too close.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Austro-Hungarian_torpedo_boat_81T_NH_87683.tif <take this little thing for example, not going to win any awards for longevity in the field if it's carrying massive armaments, but you can fit a gun on it and potentially a couple LRM's if need be. Obviously with some ingenuity you could even have it deploy VTOL drones equipped with hellfire's and the like.

VS. pirates, you don't need much. Simply getting a drone loaded with some missiles in the air is enough. If you don't want to waste a drone's time, strap a 20mm CIWS on the ship and get a bit closer. When not in solo ops, it can help protect the larger ships of the fleet.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chidori-class_torpedo_boat <500 -700 tons for a design such as this. Again, switching out the torpedoes for something else and the guns can be replaced with CIWS (though the phalanx is obviously a lot heavier than a traditional gun mount. Note: the issue the thing had with its armament being too much for it in bad weather. This is really the only big problem with such small designs ; that and limited ammo and supplies being additional issues. https://ca.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080618160551AAKoBnL another link about ocean-going ship issues that would have to be considered. Of course these are old designs, I'm sure that (using the same tonnage) there are hull design factors today that can get a ship to perform well with a limited budget.

Benefits of the designs are that they are cheaper to run and cheaper to lose in combat. Not something that a crewmember would like to hear, but being so small, it obviously wouldn't last long if it ever did face a real threat. This right here might be the main thing that keep the navy from adopting something this small. Last thing they want on their hands is a PR nightmare about how a group of AK/RPG toting Somali's took out one of their small anti-piracy ships.

IF the design is to be setup to take out multiple small targets and IF those targets are more advanced than pirates, the options are a bit more limited and a small vessel might not be worth much as compared to just having aircraft do its job.

We all know that a larger vessel can be taken out with a small ship https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Cole_bombing . If the enemy can fit a single anti-ship missile or torpedo on a PT-style ship, the only counter to such a thing would be to find it first and take it out. Doing so would likely be left up to aircraft and unless the enemy ship was sporting some darn good AA defense platforms, it wouldn't hold up too well. But, give this design a CIWS with some AA missiles and a single anti-ship torpedo or missile and then add 5 more to the mix and you've got a pack of ships that cost 1 million each potentially taking out a ship costing greater than 10 times itself.

Even better (or worse depending who's side your on), having the enemy ship expend any of its own large missiles to take out one of these smaller ships would work just as well as it would limit the ships ability to utilize that missile for other, larger vessels/targets. Basically, just swarm the thing with a bunch of small bee's and eventually you'll take it down. Quantity has a Quality all its own after all.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
303 posts
3,844 battles

For general purpose patrol and light combat we might want to look back in time a bit and design a decendant of the Gearing class DD, maybe call it a Frigate or such.  2500 to 2700 tons, single 5"/62 mount forward, small VLS system forward for either SM2 or Improved SeaSparrow for SAM, 20mm Phalanx (1 per side) and RAM launcher (1 per side or 1 aft.  Smaller 20 & 40mm mounts amidships.  "Old fashioned" rotating surface and air search radars plus 1 or 2 "illuminator" or missile guidance radars to make the missile suite useful and a MK-86 control system for Mount 51.

Diesel power rather than gas turbine.  This ship shouldn't need to scream around the ocean at warp speed, diesel should still allow up to 28 knots if coupled with 2 variable pitch propellers, 4+ meter diameter.  Diesel also would allow extended cruising time / range.

If it's determined the class NEEDS to be able to keep up with the carrier groups then use gas turbines rather than diesel and accept the fuel use penalties and change the armament / electronics fit as appropriate before the ship is laid down for building. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
560
[BROOK]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
2,941 posts
7 hours ago, CAPT_Rob said:

For general purpose patrol and light combat we might want to look back in time a bit and design a decendant of the Gearing class DD, maybe call it a Frigate or such.  2500 to 2700 tons, single 5"/62 mount forward, small VLS system forward for either SM2 or Improved SeaSparrow for SAM, 20mm Phalanx (1 per side) and RAM launcher (1 per side or 1 aft.  Smaller 20 & 40mm mounts amidships.  "Old fashioned" rotating surface and air search radars plus 1 or 2 "illuminator" or missile guidance radars to make the missile suite useful and a MK-86 control system for Mount 51.

Diesel power rather than gas turbine.  This ship shouldn't need to scream around the ocean at warp speed, diesel should still allow up to 28 knots if coupled with 2 variable pitch propellers, 4+ meter diameter.  Diesel also would allow extended cruising time / range.

If it's determined the class NEEDS to be able to keep up with the carrier groups then use gas turbines rather than diesel and accept the fuel use penalties and change the armament / electronics fit as appropriate before the ship is laid down for building. 

Recent CIWS can insert their tracking and ranging radars into the CIC for other tasking such as additional target illuminators and guidance. So there's actually no need for any radar outside weather/navigational. All the corvette would need is a few Phalanx/RAM stations and a Mk 110 along with a few Mark 38 RWSs. (Plus a smattering of M3s because .50 cals are always relevant.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
211
[70]
Members
1,102 posts
5,711 battles
8 hours ago, CAPT_Rob said:

For general purpose patrol and light combat we might want to look back in time a bit and design a decendant of the Gearing class DD, maybe call it a Frigate or such.  2500 to 2700 tons, single 5"/62 mount forward, small VLS system forward for either SM2 or Improved SeaSparrow for SAM, 20mm Phalanx (1 per side) and RAM launcher (1 per side or 1 aft.  Smaller 20 & 40mm mounts amidships.  "Old fashioned" rotating surface and air search radars plus 1 or 2 "illuminator" or missile guidance radars to make the missile suite useful and a MK-86 control system for Mount 51.

Diesel power rather than gas turbine.  This ship shouldn't need to scream around the ocean at warp speed, diesel should still allow up to 28 knots if coupled with 2 variable pitch propellers, 4+ meter diameter.  Diesel also would allow extended cruising time / range.

If it's determined the class NEEDS to be able to keep up with the carrier groups then use gas turbines rather than diesel and accept the fuel use penalties and change the armament / electronics fit as appropriate before the ship is laid down for building. 

1. You want a cheaper AA system. Nothing heavier than one or at most two SeaRAM turrets (depending on cell count) would be the absolute max. Preferably just a couple Stingers and the 20mm rotaries.

I do however recommend an APS system for anti-RPG defence. Quick Kill has a radar attached that's used for firebase mortar warning, good to wire into the CIC methinks...

The tonnage looks rather bleh as modern corvettes are 500 to 3000 tons, so... I'm thinking Old Fashioned Corvettes i.e. 600-1000 ton range...

 

2. I suggest diesel-electric or turbine-electric actually. It's not like you'll be using hull hydrophones at high speed anyhow and long range radar is for picket duty when you're basically standing still instead of persecuting a contact. 26 knots speed, 28 with full power (some routed away from sensors) would more than suffice.

 

3. "THOU SHALT NOT MISSION CREEP" is a commandment of us theorycrafters for a reason..

Edited by Guardian54

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,794 posts
6,734 battles
On 7/6/2018 at 11:34 PM, Danyir_Amore said:

And Pirates don't engage anyone that is even remotely a threat, the Rpg's are for show.  They won't go after a ship that simply has a visible DShK on it.  Pirates aren't there to fight they are trying to make money, and that's why you don't need anything other than a gun to shoot across their bows and scare them into surrender.

Yes this is called mission creep and its the biggest problem our military is facing right now.  There is no one that can take us on the planet but our military is too expensive to do all the things we want it to do.  This is in part due to the concept of big expensive jack of all trades ships.  If we want to commit a vessel on an antipiracy cruise we should just pay for what is needed, an engine and a gun and maybe a helicopter.  Instead we have to pay to send hundreds of BMD missiles, Torpedoes, ASW, AAA, Electronic warfare suites, and god knows what else is on those things and everything else that is required to support it all.  Costs increase exponentially with all this extra crap and we don't accomplish anything else for it.

If we want a small ship to fight other small ships, then it should be its own design and have a separate mission set.  It would be slightly less wasteful to use such ships on antipiracy since they wouldn't have other missions in peacetime but it would still be a lot of waste in extra support and personnel costs that wouldn't be necessary.

Essentially what all we need is a glorified yacht with a gun, a few of them.  They should be considered disposable, and either used till they are worn out or if the piracy threat is eliminated (unlikely anytime soon) sold to some third world country as a coastal patrol vessel.  I wouldn't even consider making them fancy enough to warrant being used by our own coast guard after their mission is complete.

Honestly could even dispense with the gun and just use TOW missiles, and if there is gonna be a Helo AGM 114's.

They’ve attacked several naval vessels...

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/somali-pirates-fire-on-us-warship-lose/

 

an armed yacht is all that’s necessary for pirates but the navy will never build anything so monoroled. The navy will want to build something that can do something against another navy.

for what you’re talking about just doubling the range of a cyclone is all you’d need to do...but I don’t see the navy going that route.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,794 posts
6,734 battles
On 7/7/2018 at 12:58 AM, Levits said:

If it's for anti-piracy, I'd go with between 250 tons to 600t.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_World_War_II_ships_of_less_than_1000_tons

250 is very small for having something that can deal with a variety of issues, but perfectly capable of being setup to do one specific task.

Basically, a floating gun platform with a single weapon system; probably a CIWS as defense and more than likely as a main gun. RPG's aren't an issue as long as you don't get too close.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Austro-Hungarian_torpedo_boat_81T_NH_87683.tif <take this little thing for example, not going to win any awards for longevity in the field if it's carrying massive armaments, but you can fit a gun on it and potentially a couple LRM's if need be. Obviously with some ingenuity you could even have it deploy VTOL drones equipped with hellfire's and the like.

VS. pirates, you don't need much. Simply getting a drone loaded with some missiles in the air is enough. If you don't want to waste a drone's time, strap a 20mm CIWS on the ship and get a bit closer. When not in solo ops, it can help protect the larger ships of the fleet.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chidori-class_torpedo_boat <500 -700 tons for a design such as this. Again, switching out the torpedoes for something else and the guns can be replaced with CIWS (though the phalanx is obviously a lot heavier than a traditional gun mount. Note: the issue the thing had with its armament being too much for it in bad weather. This is really the only big problem with such small designs ; that and limited ammo and supplies being additional issues. https://ca.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080618160551AAKoBnL another link about ocean-going ship issues that would have to be considered. Of course these are old designs, I'm sure that (using the same tonnage) there are hull design factors today that can get a ship to perform well with a limited budget.

Benefits of the designs are that they are cheaper to run and cheaper to lose in combat. Not something that a crewmember would like to hear, but being so small, it obviously wouldn't last long if it ever did face a real threat. This right here might be the main thing that keep the navy from adopting something this small. Last thing they want on their hands is a PR nightmare about how a group of AK/RPG toting Somali's took out one of their small anti-piracy ships.

IF the design is to be setup to take out multiple small targets and IF those targets are more advanced than pirates, the options are a bit more limited and a small vessel might not be worth much as compared to just having aircraft do its job.

We all know that a larger vessel can be taken out with a small ship https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Cole_bombing . If the enemy can fit a single anti-ship missile or torpedo on a PT-style ship, the only counter to such a thing would be to find it first and take it out. Doing so would likely be left up to aircraft and unless the enemy ship was sporting some darn good AA defense platforms, it wouldn't hold up too well. But, give this design a CIWS with some AA missiles and a single anti-ship torpedo or missile and then add 5 more to the mix and you've got a pack of ships that cost 1 million each potentially taking out a ship costing greater than 10 times itself.

Even better (or worse depending who's side your on), having the enemy ship expend any of its own large missiles to take out one of these smaller ships would work just as well as it would limit the ships ability to utilize that missile for other, larger vessels/targets. Basically, just swarm the thing with a bunch of small bee's and eventually you'll take it down. Quantity has a Quality all its own after all.

 

 

 

 

Don’t get too close...

the USN uses their ships to provide overwatch support for approaching VBSS teams. You can’t effectively do that if you’re out of range of your weapon systems nor can you do that if you can’t clearly see what’s going on aboard the suspect vessel...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
211
[70]
Members
1,102 posts
5,711 battles
1 hour ago, JohnPJones said:

an armed yacht is all that’s necessary for pirates but the navy will never build anything so monoroled. The navy will want to build something that can do something against another navy.

for what you’re talking about just doubling the range of a cyclone is all you’d need to do...but I don’t see the navy going that route.

Because Mission Creep hasn't been biting their sterns enough?

This is Darwin Award worthy tier of wilful ignorance.

Wonder what the next white elephant after the Zumwalts, all those cancelled ground vehicle programs, etc. is going to be...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
115
[C-1]
[C-1]
Members
437 posts
7,510 battles
58 minutes ago, JohnPJones said:

the USN uses their ships to provide overwatch support for approaching VBSS teams. You can’t effectively do that if you’re out of range of your weapon systems nor can you do that if you can’t clearly see what’s going on aboard the suspect vessel...

You can use drones to find pirates and deal with them or just ride over to them once they are found, you can also use radios to tell a commercial ship to stop if you are going to search, you don't need a large ship to do either of those.

Drones work well for if someone grabs a gun and tries to shoot it down, chances are he wasn't carrying that gun for self-defense and you didn't have to put yourself in harms way to find out. If you have to get close, you're still just as capable of doing so as any other ship we currently have. 250 tons is small for a oceangoing vessel but, with todays material and design, you can do well with that as a base if you are pitted against people armed with cold war era weapons or commercial vessels.

Search and seizure happens after you found them regardless and with drones taking care of the legwork, you can cover a far greater area with minimal manpower. The only things that would limit the drones are potential upkeep which is negligible with proper design and storm/weather conditions which effects everything anyways. You can still fit detection equipment onboard a ship of 250 tons so finding them wont be a problem.

Dealing with them at range if they are hostile is simple. Dealing with them up close during a search is also just as simple because I doubt pirates or the average joe are going to want to tangle with a ship of any size sporting military equipment.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,794 posts
6,734 battles
37 minutes ago, Guardian54 said:

Because Mission Creep hasn't been biting their sterns enough?

This is Darwin Award worthy tier of wilful ignorance.

Wonder what the next white elephant after the Zumwalts, all those cancelled ground vehicle programs, etc. is going to be...

You keep saying mission creep but I don’t think you know what it means.

1. Aircraft are what really do most of the work in locating pirates not the actual ships. So you will need something larger than a few hundred tons

2. I the OP of this thread never said anything about a ship specifically for pirate hunting.

3. Your posts regarding MIO taskings show no connection to reality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,794 posts
6,734 battles
27 minutes ago, Levits said:

You can use drones to find pirates and deal with them or just ride over to them once they are found, you can also use radios to tell a commercial ship to stop if you are going to search, you don't need a large ship to do either of those.

Drones work well for if someone grabs a gun and tries to shoot it down, chances are he wasn't carrying that gun for self-defense and you didn't have to put yourself in harms way to find out. If you have to get close, you're still just as capable of doing so as any other ship we currently have. 250 tons is small for a oceangoing vessel but, with todays material and design, you can do well with that as a base if you are pitted against people armed with cold war era weapons or commercial vessels.

Search and seizure happens after you found them regardless and with drones taking care of the legwork, you can cover a far greater area with minimal manpower. The only things that would limit the drones are potential upkeep which is negligible with proper design and storm/weather conditions which effects everything anyways. You can still fit detection equipment onboard a ship of 250 tons so finding them wont be a problem.

Dealing with them at range if they are hostile is simple. Dealing with them up close during a search is also just as simple because I doubt pirates or the average joe are going to want to tangle with a ship of any size sporting military equipment.

 

There have been plenty of pirate attacks on military vessels. Google pirates attack warship.

 

have you ever been involved in MIO tasking first hand? 

Drones are not the magical answer to problems people like you seem to think they are.

’detection equipment’ what do you mean by that? Radar? Radar that will locate the dozens or hundreds of other small fishing craft in the area?

Edited by JohnPJones

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
211
[70]
Members
1,102 posts
5,711 battles
1 hour ago, JohnPJones said:

You keep saying mission creep but I don’t think you know what it means.

1. Aircraft are what really do most of the work in locating pirates not the actual ships. So you will need something larger than a few hundred tons

2. I the OP of this thread never said anything about a ship specifically for pirate hunting.

3. Your posts regarding MIO taskings show no connection to reality.

"We want to be able to do everything" when you really only need it to do a couple things adequately.

 

1. I've said a few times (maybe on my arm launcher thread though) that I'm thinking something in the 800-1200 ton range.

Coincidentally, this fits the bill pretty closely: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sa'ar_5-class_corvette

Something a bit shorter, with some armour (i.e. can won't get holed by someone randomly opening up with a weapon) and keeping the small helicopter, would be good enough for the job.

 

Oh hell, there's something even lighter: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sa'ar_4.5-class_missile_boat

Chopper, missiles, replace the CIWS with Quick Kill and use a 76mm gun instead... maybe use VLS for missiles instead (on a taller, bigger hull) or just Stingers... it proves you can put a helo on under 500 tons of hull.

 

2. Blue water combat vessel "of use", did not specify a role... and if anti-terrorism is a priority over fighting a rival navy, then you need large numbers of cheap boats.

 

3. You mind educating us then?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
115
[C-1]
[C-1]
Members
437 posts
7,510 battles
52 minutes ago, JohnPJones said:

There have been plenty of pirate attacks on military vessels. Google pirates attack warship.

 

have you ever been involved in MIO tasking first hand? 

Drones are not the magical answer to problems people like you seem to think they are.

’detection equipment’ what do you mean by that? Radar? Radar that will locate the dozens or hundreds of other small fishing craft in the area?

It does not take a 10 million ton warship to intercept pirates; it wouldn't even take a 1000 ton warship to do that. It does not take the whole air force and navy to look for a ship out in the ocean either. Heck, it only takes a couple dozen armed people with rifles onboard a cargo ship to ward off pirates anyways. Get a ship that can deploy a helicopter or (seeing as to how they are easier to manage) drones and you've already beaten them.

Pirates aren't rolling around in hydrofoils or stealth ships equipped with missiles and/or cannons, they aren't equipped with the most advanced AA platforms. Send a single plane out, send a drone out, or roll up in your own small ship which is obviously faster, better armed, and in every way possible better than what they would have. If they don't surrender, blow them out of the water like all of the other ships did in my google search.

After googling "Pirates attack warship", I'd like to ask you to find a link where the pirates actually won one of those engagements. I couldn't find one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
211
[70]
Members
1,102 posts
5,711 battles
5 minutes ago, Levits said:

After googling "Pirates attack warship", I'd like to ask you to find a link where the pirates actually won one of those engagements. I couldn't find one.

I think you mean "pirates who actually managed to get away", because USS Cole was a victory for the terrorists in kill to death ratio and value ratio...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
115
[C-1]
[C-1]
Members
437 posts
7,510 battles
5 minutes ago, Guardian54 said:

I think you mean "pirates who actually managed to get away", because USS Cole was a victory for the terrorists in kill to death ratio and value ratio...

Well pirates and terrorists are two different things. Terrorists aren't looking to make a profit or stay alive most of the time. Had the Cole actually shot them though, we'd not have had this problem. A complete blunder on their part and our government. <Government because of the [edited] about not backing our own soldiers when they have to make life and death decisions. The Captain never should have allowed that ship nearby but I certainly wouldn't have put it past our government to throw him in prison for firing on a "civilian" boat.

Edited by Levits

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
211
[70]
Members
1,102 posts
5,711 battles
47 minutes ago, Levits said:

Well pirates and terrorists are two different things. Terrorists aren't looking to make a profit or stay alive most of the time. Had the Cole actually shot them though, we'd not have had this problem. A complete blunder on their part and our government. <Government because of the [edited] about not backing our own soldiers when they have to make life and death decisions. The Captain never should have allowed that ship nearby but I certainly wouldn't have put it past our government to throw him in prison for firing on a "civilian" boat.

Depends.

If your warship using the port channel once to get in (and again to leave) means no one else whatsoever is allowed through for 1 day beforehand each (to sweep for mines or similar)? That's called paranoia and a great way to get everyone to tell you to send your own tenders for replenishment at sea i.e. YOU ARE NOT WELCOME.

41 minutes ago, Levits said:

The freeboard to draft ratio on the illustration terrifies me. It does not strike me as a very stable ship...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,794 posts
6,734 battles
2 hours ago, Levits said:

It does not take a 10 million ton warship to intercept pirates; it wouldn't even take a 1000 ton warship to do that. It does not take the whole air force and navy to look for a ship out in the ocean either. Heck, it only takes a couple dozen armed people with rifles onboard a cargo ship to ward off pirates anyways. Get a ship that can deploy a helicopter or (seeing as to how they are easier to manage) drones and you've already beaten them.

Pirates aren't rolling around in hydrofoils or stealth ships equipped with missiles and/or cannons, they aren't equipped with the most advanced AA platforms. Send a single plane out, send a drone out, or roll up in your own small ship which is obviously faster, better armed, and in every way possible better than what they would have. If they don't surrender, blow them out of the water like all of the other ships did in my google search.

After googling "Pirates attack warship", I'd like to ask you to find a link where the pirates actually won one of those engagements. I couldn't find one.

You’re right, but a first rate navy with global interests and operations isn’t going to spend money on a ship or class that is useless for anything except MIO tasking.

A cargo ship with a few helicopters and marines and a few small boats of its own would be a realistic idea for some place like Somaliland, not the US, China, Russia, etc. (maybe the RN at this rate)

world class navies don’t want and aren’t going to go with the bare minimum of what would work to hunt pirates. It’s that simple and that’s the big flaw in your thought process.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,794 posts
6,734 battles
3 hours ago, Guardian54 said:

"We want to be able to do everything" when you really only need it to do a couple things adequately.

 

1. I've said a few times (maybe on my arm launcher thread though) that I'm thinking something in the 800-1200 ton range.

Coincidentally, this fits the bill pretty closely: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sa'ar_5-class_corvette

Something a bit shorter, with some armour (i.e. can won't get holed by someone randomly opening up with a weapon) and keeping the small helicopter, would be good enough for the job.

 

Oh hell, there's something even lighter: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sa'ar_4.5-class_missile_boat

Chopper, missiles, replace the CIWS with Quick Kill and use a 76mm gun instead... maybe use VLS for missiles instead (on a taller, bigger hull) or just Stingers... it proves you can put a helo on under 500 tons of hull.

 

2. Blue water combat vessel "of use", did not specify a role... and if anti-terrorism is a priority over fighting a rival navy, then you need large numbers of cheap boats.

 

3. You mind educating us then?

You post about bare bones but wanting to use missiles against pirates.

when you put a VBSS team in the water you’re not sitting 5 miles away from the suspect vessel you’re 1000-2000yds away so you can clearly see what’s happening on deck via EOS and binoculars as well as provide immediate and direct support if the suspect vessel makes a dumb decision and fires on the boarding teams while crossing in a RHIB, and simply saying ‘well pirates don’t usually attack warships’ isn’t good enough for any one (except an extreme minority like yourself.) to get the ship to back off to a ‘safe’ distance.

you need aircraft preferably armed to actually do most of the leg work which will result in a fairly large ship compared to a ship with all the same basic capabilities just without its own aircraft.

and then there’s the fact that no world class navy is purchasing or building a dedicated MIO vessel because it’s a bigger waste of money than retasking another ship with ‘too much’ capably.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
211
[70]
Members
1,102 posts
5,711 battles
1 hour ago, JohnPJones said:

You’re right, but a first rate navy with global interests and operations isn’t going to spend money on a ship or class that is useless for anything except MIO tasking.

A cargo ship with a few helicopters and marines and a few small boats of its own would be a realistic idea for some place like Somaliland, not the US, China, Russia, etc. (maybe the RN at this rate)

world class navies don’t want and aren’t going to go with the bare minimum of what would work to hunt pirates. It’s that simple and that’s the big flaw in your thought process.

A coast guard job overseas where you can't send the Coast Guard has only one solution that's sensible and economical: use Coast Guard type equipment.

And if the USN doesn't have CG type equipment? BUY SOME, and tell the Coast Guard, if they get annoyed, that if they want to go overseas they're welcome, but otherwise shut up and let the Navy do its job.

56 minutes ago, JohnPJones said:

You post about bare bones but wanting to use missiles against pirates.

when you put a VBSS team in the water you’re not sitting 5 miles away from the suspect vessel you’re 1000-2000yds away so you can clearly see what’s happening on deck via EOS and binoculars as well as provide immediate and direct support if the suspect vessel makes a dumb decision and fires on the boarding teams while crossing in a RHIB, and simply saying ‘well pirates don’t usually attack warships’ isn’t good enough for any one (except an extreme minority like yourself.) to get the ship to back off to a ‘safe’ distance.

you need aircraft preferably armed to actually do most of the leg work which will result in a fairly large ship compared to a ship with all the same basic capabilities just without its own aircraft.

I said missiles are going to be carried because that's what the USN has a boner for. I prefer no missiles, but that means being close enough you probably want to have armour. Which part of ARMOUR shows I seem to think pirates don't usually attack warships? I just noted to the other guy that pirates generally didn't walk away from such attacks.

I just showed you that you can fit a helicopter on a hull under 500 tons! Sure, it's not  an armoured hull, but let's say 1200 tons with a chopper and an armoured-against-30mm-autocannons, with APS for RPGs and some guns for itself. That's cheap, mass-producible equipment the Navy and Coast Guard can have in common.

There are serious reasons why most modern installations still have the old fashioned "guys in watchtowers" that's been around since the Pharaohs. It's simple, inexpensive, and functional. If you're letting pride get in the way of good solutions, remember that pride cometh before fall!

Edited by Guardian54

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
115
[C-1]
[C-1]
Members
437 posts
7,510 battles
6 hours ago, Guardian54 said:

The freeboard to draft ratio on the illustration terrifies me. It does not strike me as a very stable ship...

Yeah, it definitely wouldn't be a fun ride that's for sure, but at least you know that the pirates wont be working that day either. I'm probably being overly optimistic here, but I assume that these ships can survive bad weather; whether or not the crew can is another story altogether XD . Not sure what sort of design changes/options they may have that could make smaller vessels more pleasant through rough seas though.

 

4 hours ago, JohnPJones said:

It’s that simple and that’s the big flaw in your thought process.

This is true and the big problem. The US and darn near everyone else wants a all-encompassing ship to do one small task. If it's scouting or intercepting, they don't need to be that big, but the navy wants something that can be used for scouting, intercepting, defense, artillery support, missile support, AA, electronic warfare, cargo transport, troop transport, etc. all in one ship. Frankly, they could spend the cash, material, and personnel for one of their single ships and use it to create several smaller ones that can do a particular job just as well and never have to worry about using those larger ships for that particular task again. But, as you stated, they don't want to do that because they want a ship that can do more. This leads to larger sizes, and then to more costs, and then right back to complaining that the ships are just too large and expensive to be wasting them on the menial tasks. All the have to do is make a smaller ship dedicated to one job and leave the bigger issues to the larger ships.

Kind of like the debate on the Airforce adopting a simple/cheaper alternative to deal with the issues of using advanced jet fighters to hunt down terrorists. Just too costly a job that can be handled with a old WW2 plane. Sure the advanced and expensive equipment has its place, but you don't need them for menial tasks.

Edited by Levits

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
211
[70]
Members
1,102 posts
5,711 battles
3 hours ago, Levits said:

This is true and the big problem. The US and darn near everyone else wants a all-encompassing ship to do one small task. If it's scouting or intercepting, they don't need to be that big, but the navy wants something that can be used for scouting, intercepting, defense, artillery support, missile support, AA, electronic warfare, cargo transport, troop transport, etc. all in one ship. Frankly, they could spend the cash, material, and personnel for one of their single ships and use it to create several smaller ones that can do a particular job just as well and never have to worry about using those larger ships for that particular task again. But, as you stated, they don't want to do that because they want a ship that can do more. This leads to larger sizes, and then to more costs, and then right back to complaining that the ships are just too large and expensive to be wasting them on the menial tasks. All the have to do is make a smaller ship dedicated to one job and leave the bigger issues to the larger ships.

Kind of like the debate on the Airforce adopting a simple/cheaper alternative to deal with the issues of using advanced jet fighters to hunt down terrorists. Just too costly a job that can be handled with a old WW2 plane. Sure the advanced and expensive equipment has its place, but you don't need them for menial tasks.

The US Navy makes me wonder why the US Army is apparently intelligent enough to have bulldozers in the inventory when they could slap dozer blades on the front of an Abrams and call that a day... *looks it up, sees no dozers in the List of Equipment of the US Army Wikipedia page... Googles it*

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armored_bulldozer#United_States_usage

USA-unpack-D9R_01.jpg

Seems the Army meets that minimum standard of competence at least.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×