USS San Antonio (LPD-17) class as a gunboat

[The_Necromancer_015]

 

Ok more of a missile boat/AEGIS ship.

"The U.S. Navy has been in discussions with shipbuilder Huntington Ingalls about the possibility of building a missile defense variant of the San Antonio-class amphibious transport dock (LPD-17). The new vessel could eventually be equipped with new radars, railguns and lasers." (from article below)

 

My Dad was part of the building this class of ship from the mid 90's till he retired last year. They (Northrop Grumman/Huntington Ingalls) had hoped for 2 more ships orders that would replace the USS Blue Ridge (LCC-19) and USS Mount Whitney (LCC-20). This came out of nowhere and looks like an interesting use of the class, especially since She is also the largest U.S. Navy vessel to incorporate stealth features ( has a radar cross section of a Arleigh Burke class DD).

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/us-navys-plans-huge-ballistic-missile-defense-ship-14920

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_San_Antonio_(LPD-17)

[Riptide109]

Now, I just started, but considering the T10 Montana was a WWII design and this is from the early 21st century, wouldn't this be too modern?

[Kitakami_]

Way too technologically advanced, too new, and stealth features..? That's already in the game! 

 

 

Yeah but no. This won't make it into the game.

 

Like,

 

Ever.

[The_Necromancer_015]

This is Historical Discussions and Studies → Modern Warships  sub forum. This is where something like this belongs isn't it? I know this is not going in game lol,

[Riptide109]

This is Historical Discussions and Studies → Modern Warships  sub forum. This is where something like this belongs isn't it? I know this is not going in game lol,

 

Oh, OK, your post just made it seem lik you wanted it added.

[Mister_Rawr]

This is an interesting concept, is being floated around and does make a certain amount of sense.  

 

The LPDs each have five large turbodiesel generator sets, and though they are configured in the strangest bus design I've ever seen deployed, they are capable of carrying a heavy electrical load.  It is a large, stable ship that could well support arrays larger than SPY-1, a significant limiting factor for DDGs.  It's also deep and broad enough to support a (yet to be designed) larger diameter VLS capable of supporting interceptors larger and more capable than the current and near-future generations of SM-3.

 

The mission profile of BMD DDGs mostly consists of finding a specific box and sitting there for long periods of time.  LPD-17s are not fast, but they are perfectly capable of loitering for long periods of time, and replacing the well deck with improved logistics and fuel storage would make a significant difference.  Stretching the idea a bit, installing a MAKIN ISLAND-style low speed propulsion system would improve that loiter capability even more.

 

Really, the only difficulty would be defending the thing once shooting started, and a Baseline 9 IAMD ship should be able to do that reasonably well, especially with the assistance of a friendly SSN.

 

Just some thoughts.

 

-R

[JohnPJones]

well i posited a possibility of an upscaled version of the LPD hull being used for as a possibility for a modern BB design.

 

it really depends, because i don't think the navy seriously wants another tomahawk platform, we've already got two different class of ships for that purpose, and building a capital ship sized vessel just to carry a crapton of SMs and what not, then i think it's a huge waste of time.

 

something like an upscaled version of the danish ship the 'absolom' i could see as being useful (hopefully they'd opt for a bigger main gun.)

[JohnPJones]

This is an interesting concept, is being floated around and does make a certain amount of sense.  

 

The LPDs each have five large turbodiesel generator sets, and though they are configured in the strangest bus design I've ever seen deployed, they are capable of carrying a heavy electrical load.  It is a large, stable ship that could well support arrays larger than SPY-1, a significant limiting factor for DDGs.  It's also deep and broad enough to support a (yet to be designed) larger diameter VLS capable of supporting interceptors larger and more capable than the current and near-future generations of SM-3.

 

The mission profile of BMD DDGs mostly consists of finding a specific box and sitting there for long periods of time.  LPD-17s are not fast, but they are perfectly capable of loitering for long periods of time, and replacing the well deck with improved logistics and fuel storage would make a significant difference.  Stretching the idea a bit, installing a MAKIN ISLAND-style low speed propulsion system would improve that loiter capability even more.

 

Really, the only difficulty would be defending the thing once shooting started, and a Baseline 9 IAMD ship should be able to do that reasonably well, especially with the assistance of a friendly SSN.

 

Just some thoughts.

 

-R

 

it would be classified as a capital ship, so it would never go any where unescorted...which makes the whole idea of using it for BMD rather unappealing imho since you'd have at least 2 DDGs or CGs with it, that could conduct that role just as well.

[KiloWhiskey]

 

it would be classified as a capital ship, so it would never go any where unescorted...which makes the whole idea of using it for BMD rather unappealing imho since you'd have at least 2 DDGs or CGs with it, that could conduct that role just as well.

 

Although I agree with it probably being a “capital ship” (no matter what the Navy calls it) I think Mr. Rawr is right, the San Antonio’s have more growth potential for the roll with fewer modifications or temptations to misuse the ships then the current generation of ships. (many of the same issues law and policy makers have with “light tanks” they see the word “tanks” not “light”, one of the (many) advantages of the LAV/Stryker over the Sheridan)

 

Only question I have is have they gotten the wrinkles out. From what I have heard the San Antonio is a fairly messed up ship not because of the design (although the changes made to her compared to her predecessors made her a little less effective as a LPD as the Corps abilities currently stand, there was a little too much hopeum being smoked around the sea basing concept and over the horizon beach assaults) but because of Katrina and the repercussions to the New Orleans shipbuilding industry.

 

From what I understand the other ships not built in New Orleans have performed better.

[RedBear87]

Only question I have is have they gotten the wrinkles out.

The say so.

[Mister_Rawr]

 

it would be classified as a capital ship, so it would never go any where unescorted...which makes the whole idea of using it for BMD rather unappealing imho since you'd have at least 2 DDGs or CGs with it, that could conduct that role just as well.

 

That's pretty much what the new systems are designed around.  Baseline 3 and 4 BMD were only really capable of operating independently.  They are networked, but not to the extent of Baseline 5 ships.  B/L 5 IAMD is designed to operate as a network of units, one alone will never be capable of operating up to potential because of radar horizon and power limitations.

 

Now, I understand that more of the ships proposed for conversion to B/L 5 are being reslated for 4.  It's much cheaper and does several things just as well as 5, so it's an attractive option when the shipbuilding industry is screaming for more work.  As more new ships are being fielded, though, DDG-113 and newer are receiving Aegis Baseline 9D, which is pretty much just 9C from the keel up instead of a shipalt.  The strategy is still not well understood, but if implemented correctly it will mean the end of single-ship BMD ops and the beginning of a network of IAMD DDGs operating around an IAMD commander aboard an Aegis B/L 9A cruiser, which is admittedly not an IAMD ship, but makes the most sense as a mission control node.  

 

The IAMD SAN ANTONIO would replace that cruiser as a hub of communication and operation for the network, something current LPDs are actually very good at.  Their current C4 capabilities are only surpassed by LHD/As, LCCs and CVNs.

 

Only question I have is have they gotten the wrinkles out.

 

Yes, mostly.  While I ended up going to different ships, I was originally slated for ANCHORAGE and then SAN DIEGO, so I paid very close attention to them throughout their construction and early commissioned service.  SAN DIEGO seems to have come out of the yards in good shape and is already contributing well.  ANCHORAGE, however, had to have some engineering changes.  Engines don't work very well when they won't stay put.  

 

In general though, the problems have been worked out.  SAN ANTONIO, though a complete garbage heap when new, appears to have finally worked out most of her problems through years and years of hard work by the crews.  Mostly compensating for the garbage they got from the shipyard.  Avondale, or the shipyard that used to be Avondale, no longer receives contracts from the Navy, incidentally.

 

-R

[JohnPJones]

 

That's pretty much what the new systems are designed around.  Baseline 3 and 4 BMD were only really capable of operating independently.  They are networked, but not to the extent of Baseline 5 ships.  B/L 5 IAMD is designed to operate as a network of units, one alone will never be capable of operating up to potential because of radar horizon and power limitations.

 

Now, I understand that more of the ships proposed for conversion to B/L 5 are being reslated for 4.  It's much cheaper and does several things just as well as 5, so it's an attractive option when the shipbuilding industry is screaming for more work.  As more new ships are being fielded, though, DDG-113 and newer are receiving Aegis Baseline 9D, which is pretty much just 9C from the keel up instead of a shipalt.  The strategy is still not well understood, but if implemented correctly it will mean the end of single-ship BMD ops and the beginning of a network of IAMD DDGs operating around an IAMD commander aboard an Aegis B/L 9A cruiser, which is admittedly not an IAMD ship, but makes the most sense as a mission control node.  

 

The IAMD SAN ANTONIO would replace that cruiser as a hub of communication and operation for the network, something current LPDs are actually very good at.  Their current C4 capabilities are only surpassed by LHD/As, LCCs and CVNs.

 

 

Yes, mostly.  While I ended up going to different ships, I was originally slated for ANCHORAGE and then SAN DIEGO, so I paid very close attention to them throughout their construction and early commissioned service.  SAN DIEGO seems to have come out of the yards in good shape and is already contributing well.  ANCHORAGE, however, had to have some engineering changes.  Engines don't work very well when they won't stay put.  

 

In general though, the problems have been worked out.  SAN ANTONIO, though a complete garbage heap when new, appears to have finally worked out most of her problems through years and years of hard work by the crews.  Mostly compensating for the garbage they got from the shipyard.  Avondale, or the shipyard that used to be Avondale, no longer receives contracts from the Navy, incidentally.

 

-R

 

i have no idea what you are talking about right now, but it sounds like you are questioning whether or not the current ships can reliably and accurately detect a missile launched against the US. when i was in the southern black sea, we detected a space rocket launch in northern russia, not to mention since ICBMs would be flying high through the air, the radar systems aren't as limited in their detection capability as they are with surface targets.

 

ICBMs have been a major threat for quite a while, if the current systems weren't more than sufficient do you really think that they wouldn't have already looked at a concept like the one you're talking about?

 

i am sorry, but this concept just seems way to mono-dynamic to become a reality. what you are proposing is essentially to deploy an entire strike group on BMD tasking off the US coast when those assets could be better put to use forward deployed.

[KiloWhiskey]

 

i have no idea what you are talking about right now, but it sounds like you are questioning whether or not the current ships can reliably and accurately detect a missile launched against the US. when i was in the southern black sea, we detected a space rocket launch in northern russia, not to mention since ICBMs would be flying high through the air, the radar systems aren't as limited in their detection capability as they are with surface targets.

 

ICBMs have been a major threat for quite a while, if the current systems weren't more than sufficient do you really think that they wouldn't have already looked at a concept like the one you're talking about?

 

i am sorry, but this concept just seems way to mono-dynamic to become a reality. what you are proposing is essentially to deploy an entire strike group on BMD tasking off the US coast when those assets could be better put to use forward deployed.

JPJ,

 

What Mr Rawr is saying is that the conversion would as a C3 node for the regionally/theater deployed ships which is critical since it would help smooth the handoff between fwd deployed units running intercepts from boost phase to reentry and CONUS/other theater/regional commands  systems running reentry and point defense shots.

 

In addition to being a C3 node it would also be able to form a lynch pin for more capable sensors and systems without compromising the war fighting functions of the other ships due to the cube and power available as well as the units proven capability to loiter on station with little outside logistical support.

 

A ship of this type is actually the missing link in ABM as things currently stand. This way rather than operating as individual groups and ships operating in individual phases you’re going to have a ship making a report and hopefully acting when the missiles are most vulnerable. The Anti-ABM ship would then receive the report, if it hasn’t already generated one, and continue tracking and relay the feed CONUS, and Flash other ships and commands so as to maximize the rounds on target again while the missiles are vulnerable, then handoff to CONUS or another regional command to continue the engagement.

 

Additionally with the extra power available here is where rails and lasers can really shine allowing not only the surge capability of VLS from the cube that was occupied by Marine Country and the well deck/equipment handling space but also the rapid response of Rails and Lasers who in theory are capable of very fast, precise sustained engagement and since the target is rising above the horizon both LOS weapons like Lasers and Rails would be very effective and have a huge engagement envelope. And since the target is a ballistic missile just nicking it is going to be good enough for a mission kill.

 

Although such capabilities are possible today, what this does is eliminates the tax on other ships better suited for other missions as well as increasing coordination between commands that operate outside of what is normally thought of as mutually supporting (it’s almost like having a combatant command calling the shots without all the [edited]that would be involved with say PACOM getting involved). It is quite possible for this ship to coordinate responses from US positions and ships around the entire Pacific to nullify the DF-21 threat for a CBG for example.

 

The more I think about it the more I like it. It plays the US’s strengths, nullifies the Chinese capabilities both asymmetric and conventional, its “cheep” and its achievable with near term technologies.

[Mister_Rawr]

 

i have no idea what you are talking about right now, but it sounds like you are questioning whether or not the current ships can reliably and accurately detect a missile launched against the US.

 

ICBMs have been a major threat for quite a while, if the current systems weren't more than sufficient do you really think that they wouldn't have already looked at a concept like the one you're talking about?

 

i am sorry, but this concept just seems way to mono-dynamic to become a reality. what you are proposing is essentially to deploy an entire strike group on BMD tasking off the US coast when those assets could be better put to use forward deployed.

 

Sorry, didn't intend to cause confusion.  

 

My post included some actual fact.  The C4 architecture I'm referencing is what the BMD baseline 5 combat system already does as a part of the new Aegis baseline 9 suite.  Yes, our Aegis units both at sea and ashore regularly detect, track and report sub-orbital launches and many other things.  The key piece of the new system is that the new BMD baseline can network with other BMD assets at a much higher level of detail than what was previously possible with Link 16.

 

It also included some conjecture.  In order to be most efficient, the new architecture needs a control node that's closer to the AOR than C2BMC.  This would be a significant change to our current strategy of deploying independent BMD assets who each essentially report to themselves or one other unit who's performing the duties of the regional missile defense commander.  A baseline 9 CG would fill this role well, as it has the right hardware, software, authority (O6 CO) and staff space to do the job.  Unfortunately there are few of those, and there probably won't be any more conversions.  Since CHANCELLORSVILLE and NORMANDY are the only two I know have received the conversion, that small number alone may be enough to drive the demand for more IAMD command ships.  A conjectural BMD LPD hull would do all the same things, and some even better than the present baseline 9 cruisers.

 

Basically, the argument for Integrated Air and Missile Defense groups is this: one BMD unit can reliably track and engage a very finite number of launch events.  A high fidelity network can track and engage far more effectively, while defending itself against a strike designed to cripple our BMD network.

 

Apologies if this is rambling a bit, my ten months of life as a civilian have made early mornings much more difficult than they used to be.

 

-R