Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
#1 Sounds like they are moving towards expendable ships. Most of the crew on a modern warship are there for damage control and replacements during combat. If they expect the ship to go down right away (if it is ever spotted) those numbers can be drastically reduced.
At some point you can make the hull out of plastic and drop the radar signature even further. Of course by that point I think you really are dead if the enemy spots you.
Posted by rjschwarz 2013-02-27 14:41||
#2 If you can build six of these for the cost of a Burke, it may be that all six of them together would be much more survivable than a single Burke. Even if one isn't as survivable.
Posted by Thing From Snowy Mountain 2013-02-27 15:05||
#3 It looks roughly equivalent in armament to the LCS (_IF_ we put a decent radar on it, and some decent anti-shipping missiles). Based on a Thai design they had built in China back in the mid-2000's, for a cost of about $ 50 million per.
If we pretend the CIWS cost about 25 million, that would give it a total cost of around 75 million... about 1/8 the cost of the first LCS ships.
How much does a Burke cost these days?
Posted by Thing From Snowy Mountain 2013-02-27 15:13||
#4 How much does a Burke cost these days?
I think if you have to ask, you can't afford it.
Posted by Glenmore 2013-02-27 15:58||
#5 Snowy: that was the concept that drove the use of escort carriers in the Pacific in WWII. Sure, none of them were near as capable as an Essex class carrier, but you could build 4 escorts for half the cost of an Essex, and if one escort carrier was sunk (e.g., Leyte Gulf) you'd still have 3/4 of your escort fleet.
Posted by Steve White 2013-02-27 16:02||
#6 There are good and bad things to that type of strategy.
The plus side is you don't have all your eggs in one basket.
The down side is all your support costs (fuel, parts, repair, maintenance in dock, etc.) just quadrupled.
Posted by DarthVader 2013-02-27 16:54||
#7 Hm.. I don't think it'll quite quadruple since the escorts are much smaller (and hopefully standardized).
I think the idea is that you may not get the firepower or cargo capacity of a larger, much more expensive vessel - but you can make a lot of the little buggers.
Isn't Iran doing this in the other extreame - counting on overwhelming U.S. fleets via a virtual Zerg swarm of little boats?
And if the folks back home elect a democrat and you get your budget slashed you can always part one out to the others.
Posted by CrazyFool 2013-02-27 18:08||
#8 That's true Dr. White, but you might want to note the number of Escort Carriers sunk and corresponding loss of high trained personel as opposed to the number of Essexs lost.
I think the score is like 9 to 0 in ships... but casualties, not sure about, I was just reading somewhere about this and can't remember where. :(
Mainly because Escort carriers were fighting out of class and getting their ass kicked in front line combat which they were not designed for.
Posted by Shipman 2013-02-27 18:09||
#9 CrazyFool the costs are easily quadrupled, if not more. They may be cheaper to build but not cheaper to run. You got to have 4 times the berths, bunks, sailors, support people, military housing, storage for parts, fuel, drydock capacity, etc.
I would rather see larger ships with expendable unmanned escorts and planes. Yeah the target ship is a larger target and harder to replace, but you got to get through all the swarms of robots to get it.
Posted by DarthVader 2013-02-27 18:49||
#10 They may have copycated/ enhanced/ modelled their frigate on the new Singapore Frigates. They have a crew of about 75 and which they claim includes considerable manpower redundancies due to the automation factor. Sleek but with a lot of inner deck space. Had a tour with both US and Canadian Navy officers in 2010. Both saw a lot of power and advancements - and looked at the crew size of a 1/3 plus much greater fuel efficiencies and were very impressed. As an old army dog I nodded a lot but I sure undertand the concept. Standardize the design and pump out a lot. Oh ya, thats what the Russians did with their aircraft and tanks in WW2. Meanwhile The Western powers continue to overteck weapons, over plasticize and then build to the specs of the lowest bidder (or biggest lobbiest). Hmmmmm.
They seem to have the right ship for their "claimed" waters. Who knew the 200 mile EEZs under the Law of the Sea Convention would cause this much fun? Oh I guess it was obvious except to the diplomats.
What is missing from the discussion is the ongoing build up of subs. And its not just China.
Posted by Northern Cousin 2013-02-27 18:58||
#11 Shipman: Part of the problem with the Leyte Gulf comparison is that none of the 'jeep' carriers' aircraft were armed with armor-piercing bombs. They were all set up to do fire support of the Marines on the Beach, because Halsey thought he knew that those battleships were not a threat and that he needed to throw all the planes he had for that purpose against the Japanese carriers.
Posted by Thing From Snowy Mountain 2013-02-27 19:43||