US Military News, Reports, Data, etc.
- Thread starter tphuang
- Start date
Why not merge the USCG into the USN? That way Trump can claim he expanded the navy, adding 250 ships to it.
Where Fincantieri Marine Group went wrong was that they trusted government rhetoric instead of anticipating government policy.
I am surprised that they plan to install NSM over an actual VLS. I suppose NSM is a lot smaller but it is so unnecessary as a frigate.
Now its a coastal monitor at best. Good for somali pirates. But not even good for Iranian or Yemen.
It would help relieve some minor duties off the Burkes but as many other said, its an even more overcost LCS
Now its a coastal monitor at best. Good for somali pirates. But not even good for Iranian or Yemen.
It would help relieve some minor duties off the Burkes but as many other said, its an even more overcost LCS
Instead of trusting what they say, just observe what they ultimately do.
Lethe
Captain
Continuing recent discussion from 004 CVN thread re: Soviet influence on DDG-51 hull form.
Some brief research turns up some interesting articles in Proceedings, such as , which appears to be derived from study published in Naval Engineers Journal by the same authors. Excerpt from the former:
At this point, it seems uncontroversial that DDG-51 hull form was refined in ways that resembled existing Soviet practice. The question is just how direct that relationship was. Was it a case of "blind" convergent evolution, or a more directed process that originated, at least in part, from U.S. observations of comparative seakeeping qualities of U.S. and Soviet combatants? There is some ambiguity in the language, but Friedman seems to be suggesting the latter, particularly with this line: "The new hull form was inspired by U.S. Navy studies of Soviet warship design."
In that context, the biographical notes for the authors of the above-linked Proceedings article are rather interesting, linking authors specialising in comparative analysis of U.S. and Soviet designs (J.W. Kehoe) with authors directly implicated in refining DDG-51 hull form (E.N. Comstock). Chasing the reference list from the NEJ study may well prove rewarding.
Some brief research turns up some interesting articles in Proceedings, such as , which appears to be derived from study published in Naval Engineers Journal by the same authors. Excerpt from the former:
At this point, it seems uncontroversial that DDG-51 hull form was refined in ways that resembled existing Soviet practice. The question is just how direct that relationship was. Was it a case of "blind" convergent evolution, or a more directed process that originated, at least in part, from U.S. observations of comparative seakeeping qualities of U.S. and Soviet combatants? There is some ambiguity in the language, but Friedman seems to be suggesting the latter, particularly with this line: "The new hull form was inspired by U.S. Navy studies of Soviet warship design."
In that context, the biographical notes for the authors of the above-linked Proceedings article are rather interesting, linking authors specialising in comparative analysis of U.S. and Soviet designs (J.W. Kehoe) with authors directly implicated in refining DDG-51 hull form (E.N. Comstock). Chasing the reference list from the NEJ study may well prove rewarding.
Last edited:
Broccoli
Senior Member
Legend is more like a really big OPV rather than proper frigate.
People are looking at the technical weapon loadout but might be missing the intent of these new ships. Being heavy on surface warfare, I think these ships could be use to blockade or threaten blockade of a certain country's ship in areas that are relatively safe for us naval ships. Think atlantic and eastern pacific.
I’ve been wondering if “hulls in the water” is really the key phrase here?
I know a lot of people are focusing on armament, defensive systems, sensors, potential role, but what if the real point is to get a bunch of shipyards putting hulls in the water?
The US shipbuilding industry is really struggling, and maybe this is viewed as one way to expand producing capacity for future designs?
The Legend class is relatively cheap and provides a minimally viable product. The real goal may be to contract it out to several yards and have them each producing 2+ per year. Though not a large ship, the legend class is still several thousand tons.
Contracted out and stably produced over a couple blocks in large volume it could be a way to strengthen the shipbuilding industrial base as a whole?
The US shipbuilding industry may need to learn how to walk before it can run to a certain extent. The Constellation might be the right ship, but maybe it is too much of a gold plated design for the industry to handle in its current state.
Anyway, that is just my random speculation.
I know a lot of people are focusing on armament, defensive systems, sensors, potential role, but what if the real point is to get a bunch of shipyards putting hulls in the water?
The US shipbuilding industry is really struggling, and maybe this is viewed as one way to expand producing capacity for future designs?
The Legend class is relatively cheap and provides a minimally viable product. The real goal may be to contract it out to several yards and have them each producing 2+ per year. Though not a large ship, the legend class is still several thousand tons.
Contracted out and stably produced over a couple blocks in large volume it could be a way to strengthen the shipbuilding industrial base as a whole?
The US shipbuilding industry may need to learn how to walk before it can run to a certain extent. The Constellation might be the right ship, but maybe it is too much of a gold plated design for the industry to handle in its current state.
Anyway, that is just my random speculation.