| Submit your comments on this article |
| Science & Technology |
| Subcontracting The US Navy Of Tomorrow |
| 2005-12-16 |
| (original opinion) At the height of its 19th Century power, the British Navy would, as necessary, comandeer private ships for military purposes. Even as late as WWII, the US Navy would, as circumstances warranted, do the same. But today, with the impending retirement of the battleship, and the DD(X) destroyer many years away, a significant gap in naval firepower will exist for several dangerous years. Perhaps it is time for private enterprise to step forward and fill the gap. That is, some wealthy individual could have a private battleship built, with the express purpose of renting it to the Navy if and when they just had to have such a ship. Reasonably armored, and with a fast and powerful engine, a private battleship acts solely as a platform for 16" guns. It would not have to stay at sea when not being rented, and it does not have to contend with the possibility of fighting other battleships. It is strictly to attack targets on land with effective, long-range firepower. Such a ship would weigh far less, not needing heavily armored turrets. It wouldn't need the exceptional electronics and guided missiles and other such bells & whistles that the US Navy insists having on in its ships. In fact, its mission would be simple. Just steam to a destination, then fire "x" number of 16" rounds at designated targets, then go home. Other than that, protected against exocet-style missiles and able to stand off small raiders, it would be an unimpressive, low-tech ship. With modern design, it is likely that its 16" guns and their ammo would be significanly improved over their WWII counterparts. Of course, the ammo would be retained in government custody until needed. The cost of such ship could perhaps be as little as $100 Million. Its value would be so great that even in peacetime, they could rent it for $100 Million a mission. 100% return on its second mission. Navy procurement rules be damned. The owner could build the ship to any specifications he liked. And if the Navy didn't like the finished product, no problem. The owner could wait until the Navy's priorities changed, and they desperately needed what he had to rent. |
| Posted by:Anonymoose |
| #7 Gromky they are obsolete in terms of being the main naval force, but you're dead wrong when it comes to amphib ops and support inland, especially against hardened targets. In the current (mostly unopposed) naval environment, the battlewagons can trhow more ordnance fruther and on harder targets tha any platform we have in support of the Marines ashore. |
| Posted by: Oldspook 2005-12-16 22:34 |
| #6 Could you mount a gun on what is essentually a barge and tow it wherever you want? Have some small onboard engines to provide manuvering? |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2005-12-16 18:16 |
| #5 Buy a scrap hull that still floats - warship, cargo, passenger, doesn't matter. Mount whatever firepower you want - probably have to buy from North Korea since you won't get permits from US. Rig for propulsion by ocean-going tug. Total cost - $20 MM plus contract fee for tug at time of use. |
| Posted by: Glenmore 2005-12-16 17:59 |
| #4 Why a turret? The AGS will use a PGM, so why does it need a turret? It won't be getting into gun battles with other ships, just supplying high volume gun fire that F/A 18s can't. Set it up below decks with a fixed angle and let the projectile guidance system do the fine tuning. If it is really necessary, set it up just below decks so that it can be elevated. To turn it, turn the ship. That's the low cost solution. Make it up in volume. |
| Posted by: Chinemp Floluth4331 2005-12-16 16:14 |
| #3 Phil: good in concept, impossible in the real world. The basic idea is to do an end-around the bloated, corrupt and inefficient Navy procurement system. No private individual could possibly create such a ship as you propose without massive interference from the powers that be, for the same reasons that battleships are being eliminated -- they stand in the way of the DD(X). The trick is to make a warship that would *never* be a Navy warship. Incapable of doing anything other than act as a gun platform. Perhaps even looking more like a cargo ship than a warship. Externally, a rust bucket. Of course, inside it would have to have a very strong skeleton and hull, a deep water capable engine and potent stabilizers. It might not even have a closed turret, but one open to the air, like the hangar of an aircraft carrier, to vent its smoke. It would spend almost its entire life in drydock, unless a panicked US Marine Corps or Army was desperate for a gun platform that the Navy no longer had. A good possibility, considering how much territory a 24-mile range of such guns would include. Unless of course, you used slightly more modern guns with a greater range. I might add that, assuming it worked, the Navy would be deeply humiliated, shown to be grossly unprepared for its mission. But I'm sure this would not factor in to the Marine Corps or the Army's decision to rent such a ship. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2005-12-16 15:43 |
| #2 "Impending retirement of the battleship"? Battleships have been obsolete ever since Pearl Harbor. Give it up, boys. |
| Posted by: gromky 2005-12-16 14:58 |
| #1 I like this idea, but not necessarily the implementation. A very large amount of the heavy lifting of shore bombardment during WW2 was done by light cruisers, such as the St. Louis. (Which had Fifteen six inch guns). There's no reason you couldn't take the gun slated for the DD-X and put three or four of them on a Burke hull without the Aegis if you wanted to. Keep the hanger for use with drones and maybe a helicopter. It could provide a lot of the same ship-to-shore firepower as the DD-X without costing nearly as much. (Say, put one six-inch gun where the forward 5" is, keep the forward missile battery for a dozen ESSM and assorted self-defense capability, and put two six inch guns where the aft missile battery goes.) Also, another ship class that did a lot of the heavy lifting in WW2 were landing ships armed with rockets. You can read about them here: http://www.navsource.org/archives/10/14idx.htm. These were a hell of a lot cheaper than a battleship but still very effective. It wouldn't have the same sort of rocket, but I think you could do something similar to this by coming up with a navalized version of the MLRS and sticking them on an LCS hull. Let's see... an LCS hull costs about 100 million dollars, including some self-defensive systems. The MLRS truck launcher costs the army about 2 million dollars. It won't need a truck, but you will need a turret system, so let's say it costs about the same to put it on the ship, and that you would have about eight on a ship. Launcher module cost then becomes about 16 million dollars. Cost thus far: 116 million. The unguided version of the rocket costs $ 32,000.00 and the guided version costs $ 40,000.00. Let's say that half the launchers are the unguided version and half the guided, and there's one set of reloads per launcher: (32,000*8*12)+(40,000*8*12)=3,072,000+3,840,000 =6,912,000 Add this to the 116 million above, and you wind up with about 123 million. Does anyone see any mistakes in my math? |
| Posted by: Phil 2005-12-16 14:06 |