Germany will rule the waves

[MillCreek]

http://www.usnews.com/news/business/articles/2015/06/09/germany-to-get-new-air-defense-system-battleships

I will be interested to see what a contemporary German Navy battleship is like.  Something like the DDx, maybe? Since no one is building actual battleships any more.

[roo_ster]

Probably frigate to destroyer size.  Heck, we don't even do cruisers anymore.  All our cruisers are up-named destroyers called cruisers after some folk realized we had no more big ships left a few decades back.

For my own part, I would like to see nuke powered cruisers, destroyers, and frigates.  Gonna need nuke power for generators servicing HEL and rail guns on the horizon.

Also, I would like to see a real littoral combat ship like the old WWI and WWII monitors: small ships with shallow draft that tote battleship guns in the 15-16" diameter range.  Usually only one turret.  Gonna need them after helos are rendered obsolete when HELs become ubiquitous and most any aircraft is merely an expensive coffin. 

Gonna be a new world out there purty soon.

[K Frame]

The differentiation between cruisers and destroyers and the like is the same as it's always been -- fire power and intended purpose.

These days, though, you don't need a bigger ship to fit bigger guns, so you're left with intended purpose as the primary arbiter, and in the case of modern destroyers vs cruisers, it's the hardware and software suites that make the determination.

In other words, size just doesn't matter.

[mtnbkr]

In other words, size just doesn't matter.

Countries with small ships always say that.

Chris

[roo_ster]

Yep, not much difference, capabilities-wise between the USN's Aegis cruisers and Aegis destroyers.  Heck, the destroyers outweigh the cruisers now (depending on particular ship (9500-10000 tons)

OTOH, size allows for more and different capabilities.  And greater survivability.

Looks like the USN has scrapped all its frigates (4500 tons) and will rely on the new Littoral Combat Ships, which are smaller than the frigates (2500 & 3500 tons).

The USN is getting thin on the ground seas.  Fewer and fewer combatants.

[AJ Dual]

They should raise the wreck of the Terpitz and make a space battleship out of it.

Worked for the Japs...

[French G.]

Yep, not much difference, capabilities-wise between the USN's Aegis cruisers and Aegis destroyers.  Heck, the destroyers outweigh the cruisers now (depending on particular ship (9500-10000 tons)

OTOH, size allows for more and different capabilities.  And greater survivability.

Looks like the USN has scrapped all its frigates (4500 tons) and will rely on the new Littoral Combat Ships, which are smaller than the frigates (2500 & 3500 tons).

The USN is getting thin on the ground seas.  Fewer and fewer combatants.

Well with the Burkes being at least 20 years newer than the Ticonderoga class it would be expected that they would be more capable with all lessons learned from the Ticos being applied. I wouldn't mind seeing a Burke variant where they skipped the helo facilities and added a 2nd gun and more VLS space. And then you'd have a new CG. 

We do need more combatants. Real gap is carriers. Several yards can ramp up and crank out Burkes and LCS if needed. One place builds carriers and the process gets jerked around by congressional spending and such. Then there is the issue of putting planes on the decks, congressional boondoggles(read F-35) and the fact that or planes are 10 years further along in life than they should be right now due to the GWOEverything.

[K Frame]

Countries with small ships always say that.

Chris

 

 

[Scout26]

I highly doubt the Germans are building what could truly be called a battleship, much less even a "Coastal Defense Ship" .

It's probably a bad translation of a Deutsche Marine press release. 

[roo_ster]

I highly doubt the Germans are building what could truly be called a battleship, much less even a "Coastal Defense Ship" .

It's probably a bad translation of a Deutsche Marine press release. 

Yep.  Aussies are building an "air defense destroyer" or some such ship.  Bet the German ship will be similar.

Well with the Burkes being at least 20 years newer than the Ticonderoga class it would be expected that they would be more capable with all lessons learned from the Ticos being applied. I wouldn't mind seeing a Burke variant where they skipped the helo facilities and added a 2nd gun and more VLS space. And then you'd have a new CG. 

We do need more combatants. Real gap is carriers. Several yards can ramp up and crank out Burkes and LCS if needed. One place builds carriers and the process gets jerked around by congressional spending and such. Then there is the issue of putting planes on the decks, congressional boondoggles(read F-35) and the fact that or planes are 10 years further along in life than they should be right now due to the GWOEverything.

What you are saying is that the Ticos are old as dirt, because the Burkes first hit the water a quarter century ago and are old, too.  But, the USN gets three Zumwalt destroyers to play with our three Sea Wolf attack subs.  Woo-hoo.

[French G.]

New DDG-51 are very new and capable. All the Ticonderoga were built and working well before the first Burke commissioned. Need moar Burkes. When I first got to the piers I was often tied up next to the last of the CGNs. Time marches on, An LCS could probably outgun them now.

[Hutch]

<snip>

We do need more combatants. Real gap is carriers.<snip>

I've always been interested in the Navy, and I've never been one to accept the notion that "carriers are expensive targets."  Until now.  With the range of ballistic or hypersonic ship-killer missiles being greater than the combat radius of our strike aircraft, and given the stealth of modern relatively inexpensive diesel electric attack subs, I think it's time we figured out either a new force projection protocol, or (preferably) a less interventionist foreign policy.  They days when we could stand off just over the horizon from some uppity wog and lash them from the air are very quickly coming to an end.  Much more quickly than the service life of the next CVN we launch.

[Scout26]

They should raise the wreck of the Terpitz and make a space battleship out of it.

Worked for the Japs...

Tirpitz


Ich bin eine Deutsche Rechtschreibung Nazi.   

[roo_ster]

I've always been interested in the Navy, and I've never been one to accept the notion that "carriers are expensive targets."  Until now.  With the range of ballistic or hypersonic ship-killer missiles being greater than the combat radius of our strike aircraft, and given the stealth of modern relatively inexpensive diesel electric attack subs, I think it's time we figured out either a new force projection protocol, or (preferably) a less interventionist foreign policy.  They days when we could stand off just over the horizon from some uppity wog and lash them from the air are very quickly coming to an end.  Much more quickly than the service life of the next CVN we launch.

Agree to some extent. 

That antishisp ballistic or cruise missile still needs targeting information good enough so the carrier ends up where the missile can find it.  No prc aircraft or surface ship is going to get that close.  Prc sub at periscope depth will have to transmit via rf.  Pretty dicey and odds are against.

Still looking at open sources our navy would get slaughtered going after the prc mainland or close islands.  And our land bases would be smoking ruins.

Maybe we need to invest in some sort of large submarines that haul as many vertical launch missiles as a zumwalt.

[Andiron]

They should raise the wreck of the Terpitz and make a space battleship out of it.

Worked for the Japs...

I was going to throw something out about Tromsø getting sucked into space,  but the realized I was mixing Robotech with Star Blazers.  

[Hutch]

Agree to some extent. 

That antishisp ballistic or cruise missile still needs targeting information good enough so the carrier ends up where the missile can find it.  No prc aircraft or surface ship is going to get that close.  Prc sub at periscope depth will have to transmit via rf.  Pretty dicey and odds are against.

Still looking at open sources our navy would get slaughtered going after the prc mainland or close islands.  And our land bases would be smoking ruins.

Maybe we need to invest in some sort of large submarines that haul as many vertical launch missiles as a zumwalt.

Honest question: does the PLAN have stealthy drones or recon sats that can provide real-time targeting?  I reckon a sub could launch a torpedo all on its own.  I suppose it would have an exciting if brief career thereafter, but in the cold calculus of warfare, that'd be an exchange the PRC would benefit HUGELY from.

[MechAg94]

Agree to some extent. 

That antishisp ballistic or cruise missile still needs targeting information good enough so the carrier ends up where the missile can find it.  No prc aircraft or surface ship is going to get that close.  Prc sub at periscope depth will have to transmit via rf.  Pretty dicey and odds are against.

Still looking at open sources our navy would get slaughtered going after the prc mainland or close islands.  And our land bases would be smoking ruins.

Maybe we need to invest in some sort of large submarines that haul as many vertical launch missiles as a zumwalt.

Has there been any more news about the hypersonic missile the Air Force was testing?  I figured that was a pretty good weapon if we had it in numbers.  We could put warheads on launch sites before they could detect and launch.

I am sure China knows how vulnerable their territory is.  It is their ability to project military power beyond their immediate are that I am concerned about.

[MechAg94]

Also, I would like to see a real littoral combat ship like the old WWI and WWII monitors: small ships with shallow draft that tote battleship guns in the 15-16" diameter range.  Usually only one turret.  Gonna need them after helos are rendered obsolete when HELs become ubiquitous and most any aircraft is merely an expensive coffin.  

Do you really think that will happen?  David Drake's Hammer's Slammers books had that as part of the storyline.  It assumes that you have a more or less perfect detection system.  I guess it depends on how stealth abilities develop versus radar/infrared detection and range/speed of air to surface missiles.

Dumb question for those who might know, can submarines just drop a torpedo off behind them and have it sort of launch itself from a distance away?  I guess just trying to figure some way to launch them without giving away the location of the sub.

[roo_ster]

Do you really think that will happen?  David Drake's Hammer's Slammers books had that as part of the storyline.  It assumes that you have a more or less perfect detection system.  I guess it depends on how stealth abilities develop versus radar/infrared detection and range/speed of air to surface missiles.

Dumb question for those who might know, can submarines just drop a torpedo off behind them and have it sort of launch itself from a distance away?  I guess just trying to figure some way to launch them without giving away the location of the sub.

Yes.

[MechAg94]

I assume that means you think detection will outpace stealth?  Horizon to horizon? 

[dogmush]

Not just detection v stealth. 

Detection, targeting, IFF, engagement.  All have to take place while an aircraft is visible to the detector. With some of our current low altitude stuff that's a very small window.  One imagines air frame and avionics will also get better with technology.

That said, it's only a matter of time before someone says "F your treaty" and deploys orbitals.

[bedlamite]

That said, it's only a matter of time before someone says "F your treaty" and deploys orbitals.

It wouldn't surprise me if China and/or Russia has already done that.

[dogmush]

It wouldn't surprise me if China and/or Russia has already done that.

Honestly, it wouldn't surprise me that much if we had done it.

[Andiron]

Honestly, it wouldn't surprise me that much if we had done it.

If it's viable tech,  I'd be disappointed if we didn't.  Pandora's box and all.