Despite the confusing changes of nomenclature over the years,it seems likely that a replacement for the Burke class destroyers shall be called a "destroyer",even if it is as big as many "cruisers".
We shall therefore use this term to describe a future replacement for today's Burke class destroyers and Ticonderoga class cruisers.
It also seems likely that any "New American Destroyer" will be expected to perform all the roles of the Ticonderoga class cruisers,Burke class destroyers and Zumwalt class destroyers.
We shall therefore consider an American style surface combatant with anti-ballistic missile and area air defence capabilities.
The single most important quality which such a ship must posess is a significantly lower cost than ships currently planned.
This is essential to ensure that ships can be purchased in adequate numbers and that their cost is in proportion to the limited utility of a surface combatant.
There are a number of ways to reduce the cost of a surface combatant and we shall consider some of these before going any further.
Reducing the size of the ship should cut the amount of steel and welding required to build it and should also reduce the ship's fuel consumption and allow smaller engines to be fitted.
But these factors account for only a very small proportion of a warship's lifecycle costs so the potential savings are not great.
A ship which is too small may be significantly more expensive to design,build,maintain and upgrade as it is more cramped.
The cost of building a ship which is too big is likely to be far less than the cost of building a ship which is too small.
The greatest savings come from building a ship which is neither too big nor too small but the right size.
A "New American Destroyer" can be smaller and cheaper to build than the Zumwalt class only if it has to accommodate less equipment.
Reducing the range of capabilities on board the ship,for example by eliminating anti-submarine weapons and sensors,should significantly reduce the cost of designing,building and operating the vessel.
But if the "New American Destroyer" is not capable of performing a particular task then it may be necessary to have another ship to perform that role.
The cost of designing,building and operating those additional vessels is likely to be significantly greater than the cost of fitting the "New American Destroyer" with the full range of war fighting capabilities.
Reducing the quality of equipment carried by the "New American Destroyer" should significantly reduce it's procurement costs but may have little effect on it's operating costs.
However,as the quality of threat systems is constantly improving,less capable weapons and sensors quickly become obsolete rendering the ship unfit for purpose or forcing significant expenditure on upgrades.
The cost of fitting the "New American Destroyer" with lower quality weapons and sensors is likely to have a negative impact on long term costs.
Reducing the quantity of equipment carried by the "New American Destroyer" should reduce it's procurement and operating costs.
But if there are too few systems carried by the "New American Destroyer" then failures due to enemy action,human error and technical issues may render the vessel combat ineffective.
A "New American Destroyer" can be cheaper to procure and operate whilst remaining combat effective if the number of systems on board is reduced to the practical minimum,not the absolute minimum.
A "New American Destroyer" can be cheaper to procure and operate whilst remaining combat effective if the number of systems on board is reduced to the practical minimum,not the absolute minimum.
Reducing the amount of research,development and design work required to build the "New American Destroyer" should significantly reduce it's procurement costs.
But it is not possible to avoid development costs completely,most of the weapons,sensors,engines and other systems on the "New American Destroyer" can be items which are already in service or under development for other warships but there is still a need to develop a hull on which to carry those systems.
A "New American Destroyer" can have very low development costs if it uses non-developmental systems and a conventional hull design which may even be based on that of another warship if there is one suitable,for example it may be possible to add new upperworks to fit the lower hull design of the Zumwalt class destroyer.
Reducing the complexity of construction the the "New American Destroyer" should significantly reduce it's design,manufacturing and maintainance costs.
But warships are mostly constructed using simple well proven methods and low cost materials.
To minimise the cost of construction of a "New American Destroyer" it is necessary to avoid using complex hull forms,expensive materials and labour intensive construction methods as far as is practical.
We shall consider how to balance cost and capability in more detail in future parts of "New American Destroyer".
6 comments:
"The cost of designing,building and operating those additional vessels is likely to be significantly greater than the cost of fitting the "New American Destroyer" with the full range of war fighting capabilities."
I am not sure of this. Having one ship do all things. Your trying to do very different things all in one hull which leads to compromise and the vessel not excelling at anything. Also it makes each platform very expensive having all the equipment and manpower, which means you cant afford to lose one.
The US navy already has the LCS which can do anti-submarine and anti ship warfare. So wouldn't it make more sense for the next destroyer (Arleigh Burke Class Flight III) be completely focused on air defence.
GR, Great to have you posting again. I look at our Coast Guard Cutters and you planned type 26s and they are "cruisers" in the classic sense in that they can operate independently all over the world as frigates once did. So cruisers can now be smaller than destroyers.
Burkes, DDG1000s, Carriers, SSBN, SSGN are all capital ships in their own way. Aircraft fill the role of the torpedoboat destroyers as well as many others including scouting and screening.
To me a "destroyer" has become a firstline warship, while a "frigate" is a secondline warship built in large numbers at a lower price to do secondary tasks in less demanding environments. Speed being one primary difference. Destroyers need to keep up with carriers while frigates only need enough speed to escort merchants, amphibs, and fleet train.
Some question are:
-- What job needs to be done by surface units (as opposed to submarines and aerospace assets)?
-- Are there surface combatant jobs left aside from escort?
-- Does it need to be a dual/tripple-task surface combatant, or is a common one-and-a-half-ender hull enough, where the offensive mission combat systems (anti-air/orbital, anti-sub, land-attack) are in a variable stern section, while the bow section is for standard self-defence systems?
-- When will the Navy finally equip every larger surface unit with a decent self-defence suite, so that the escorts are relieved of the close escort?
Hello mick 346,
if you are still with us,almost a decade after posting your comment,here is your long awaited response.
Different roles can require different design features which can conflict with each other,however,carrying a bigger radar and larger missile magazine for air defence work does not conflict with the characteristics of a submarine hunting vessel,nor do the characteristics of a submarine hunting vessel conflict with those of a land attack vessel.
The individual vessel may be more expensive if it is an all rounder but the capability costs less,for example,three triple purpose vessels would cost less to buy and operate than nine single purpose vessels.
Today there are very few true single role warships,most have some level of air,land,sea and submarine warfare capability,the specialised vessel is simply better equipped for one particular role while the all rounder has a balanced equipment fit.
The other problem with having single purpose vessels is that it is difficult to ensure the right vessel is in the right place at the right time,which makes the enemy's job a lot easier.
Ten years after you posted this comment the Littoral Combat Ships are being retired almost as soon as they enter service.
Grand Logistics.
Hello Chuck Hill,
it is great to be posting again,a decade later,and those Type 26s are not in service yet,though they have won some export orders despite their deficiencies.
The larger United States' Coast Guard cutters and Royal Navy frigates both perform the classic role of the trade protection cruiser,amongst other duties.
There are so many historic traditions and logical conventions that the best one can hope for is consistency and the United States' Coast Guard is certainly consistent in it's terminology.
Aircraft carriers and ballistic Trident submarines could certainly qualify as capital ships,but most modern surface combatants seen to be similar to a classic cruiser in both size and role.
Aircraft have certainly taken over the role of the torpedo boat destroyer and,largely,that of the torpedo boat and it's descendent the Fast Attack Craft.
In the Royal Navy,the destroyer has become the air defence vessel while the frigate has become the submarine defence vessel,for no particular reason,but in the United States' Navy the frigate is effectively the "Third Rate" warship,behind the "Second Rate" destroyer and the "First Rate" cruiser,the frigate now being equivalent to the old destroyer escort,despite frigates previously being redesignated as cruisers.
Slower speed is perfectly adequate for a purely defensive convoy escort with a helicopter,but to hunt high speed nuclear submarines it is necessary to keep up with them.
Grand Logistics.
Hello Distiller,
surface combatants tend to be less expensive than aircraft carriers and therefore are more numerous and able to be in many more places at the same time,they can provide large volumes of low cost gun fire,provide continuous long range sonar and radar surveillance and carry ballistic missile defence systems,all in addition to providing escorts to higher value assets.
Aside from escort,the roles of the surface combatant include providing naval gunfire,providing ballistic missile defence,boarding vessels,rescuing anyone,or thing,who needs it and performing any task for which other assets are either not needed or not available.
Air,sea and submarine threats are found almost anywhere a surface combatant might be,however,an escort for oceanic convoys,or a vessel defending a friendly coast,is unlikely to need land attack capabilities and not every vessel in a convoy's escort needs to provide ballistic missile defence,so there is scope for less capable vessels in certain roles and in those circumstances an adaptable common hull may be cost effective.
Your last question would be better addressed to an admiral.
Grand Logistics.
Post a Comment