Battleship revival?

[SergUpstart]

Russia is developing a ballistic hypersonic anti-ship missile 'Zmeevik' (Serpentine) with a range of up to 4000 km. Chinese Dongfeng-21D and Dongfeng-26 (DF-26) missiles are cited as analogues, which resemble a "Coil" with a number of characteristics.

[Moontanman]

On 5/2/2021 at 12:36 PM, IDNeon said:

At end I provided citation. Watch it 

 

Nope. But don't get me wrong. Navy is a COMPLEX machine. Planning usually takes 10 years and ship building another 5 to change gears. So most plans are 15 year scopes.

What you're seeing is a winddown of the Arleigh Burke build-run.

So a few things.

1) Navy has ceased the Destroyer concept in 2017 and will be replacing it with new Virginia type submarines. But the first VPN is laid in 2021 (now).

2) AB construction continues both because it was budgeted some years ago but also because as older keels age out the new keels replace those. So if you have a life span of 20 years and want 80 you need to build 4 a year for the entire time you want to maintain 80.

The US will let the AB age out.

The new fleet is in Flux. 

USN admits we need 1trillion from 2017 to 2027 just to replace the Ohio.

That is their PRIMARY concern.

They have been unable to figure out what to do with the fleet composition problems as a result of this paramount crisis. 

The USN admits this has happened only 2x before in the history of the Navy. It must happen. So they are Willing to sail the conventional fleet right into the shallows if they have to to achieve this transition. 

I think the new fleet composition will be submarine heavy. It won't look le anything of the past.

They want UAV "long arms" to give submarines great aerial operations at depth and they want to put AA missiles on board new Virginia types.

The USN rightly asses two things. 

In the Era of ship launched ship-to-ship missiles a surface ship is a liability. 

Long range stand off cruise missiles make fleets obsolete in peer-competitor engagements.

So a fleet needs to identify and destroy Russian T-160 bombers bombers 3000 miles away.

A carrier is needed to project US sea power inland.

LDH or LPHs are needed to land divisions in hostile beaches.

That means a carrier screen will be more lethal and much larger range as Virginia Submarines get on station and provide air defense air defense 2000 miles away.

There will probably be a Destroyer replacement but I have no clue what it will look like...most likely massive ASW and point defense.

https://youtu.be/yfrrYcphFBo

Personally I think the US needs a few more LDHs and it should be a hybrid with an VTOL airwing tabletop.

But it needs a wet deck not helicopters.

This type of LDH allows for very massive flexibility which is the only way to cost save. 

The US needs to maintain carrier shipyard skill so it needs one in continuous production. But like a reactor in scram it needs to be at the smallest amount.

Offset that with LDH to compete in depth missions.

In the citation I gave the USN is using the same equipment going into a carrier to put into submarines so the cross compatibility to save cost is enormous.

A few ASW/point defense screen. A super carrier. An LDH. And a submarine AA/Anti-ship screen operating a distant UAV/UUV capability will be the most likely future for USN.

Because the Russians can project power from its borders it doesn't need Aircraft carriers.

So the Kirov makes sense for a capital ship.

The thing is a lion poised to kill a carrier group.

China will probably attempt the hybrid. A BC and Carrier fleet. 

But they haven't worked out the carrier yet and are waiting to see what the Ford does.

Recent events in Ukraine would seem to indicate Russian military is a paper Bear with no tail. I'm not sure I can get behind the idea that russia is a threat to anyone but themselves.  

[Bufofrog]

On 7/15/2022 at 3:44 PM, Moontanman said:

I'm not sure I can get behind the idea that russia is a threat to anyone but themselves. 

Anyone with fusion bombs and a way to deliver them is a threat, IMO.

[Moontanman]

1 hour ago, Bufofrog said:

Anyone with fusion bombs and a way to deliver them is a threat, IMO.

Yes i agree but using them would be suicidal, I would like to think even Putin is not insane enough to do that. 

[zapatos]

8 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

Yes i agree but using them would be suicidal, I would like to think even Putin is not insane enough to do that. 

I'm doubtful that any nuclear power would call in a nuclear strike on Russia if Putin calls in a tactical nuclear strike on Ukraine. THAT would be suicidal.

[Moontanman]

19 hours ago, zapatos said:

I'm doubtful that any nuclear power would call in a nuclear strike on Russia if Putin calls in a tactical nuclear strike on Ukraine. THAT would be suicidal.

Let us hope no one will do this. 

[StringJunky]

On 7/17/2022 at 11:16 PM, zapatos said:

I'm doubtful that any nuclear power would call in a nuclear strike on Russia if Putin calls in a tactical nuclear strike on Ukraine. THAT would be suicidal.

But it would be a declaration of war. The nuclear fallout isn't going to stay in Ukraine. I don't think we would have to respond with a reciprocal nuclear strike, we can do it in all-out conventional, since we still have a lot of those available. I see Russia using tacticals if their conventionals are depleted too much to secure their objective, assuming they must succeed at any cost.,

[zapatos]

22 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

I don't think we would have to respond with a reciprocal nuclear strike, we can do it in all-out conventional...

Do you think that is likely? An all out conventional attack on Russia seems incredibly dangerous, especially if they've already shown they are willing to use nuclear weapons.

I am at a loss for what the West would do, but the Russians using nuclear weapons in Ukraine would be the first time in my life that I'd actually believe in the possibility that I might die in a nuclear attack.

[TheVat]

When I lived in Omaha, where STRATCOM is headquartered, there was no point in worrying.  At one time, Omaha was the number one in priority as Russian target.  Most conversations were along the lines of "well, if there's ww3 we'd all be incinerated.". The whole Prepper basement thing would just get you snickered at there.

(So now we live close to Ellsworth AFB, which is probably also in the Top Ten, target-wise.  Dammit.)

I think Shoes is correct that any attack on Russia would be very dangerous.  One reason I'm more open to supporting some sort of moderate coup in Russia (Vlad would look nice on a gibbet) is that the present situation leads to them holding the whole world hostage because of their evident openness to nuke options.  Longterm that seems intolerable and insane.  

[MigL]

Raytheon just successfully tested their hypersonic missile.

I imagine that within 6 months The US will have considerably more of them than Russia has.
( and if hostilities are still ongoing, maybe the US should send a few to the Ukraine )

[iNow]

3 hours ago, TheVat said:

that seems intolerable and insane.  

It sure is a good thing those traits are never rewarded by the electorate. Oh, wait… 

[Moontanman]

I guess it will come down to how much we support Ukraine. If Russia uses nukes in Ukraine then the use of nukes has been normalised. I think the west and Russia would come to nuke blows almost immediately, if Russia's nuclear arsenal is as good as it's conventional arsenal the war will be short and a winner will emerge out of the radioactive rubble, Russia will be rebuilt with western money and emerge better than before. Typical modus operandi of the US. The whole destroy us all trope will be tested for sure. 

Then again maybe it will wait until we get battleships that can fire nuclear tip artillery hundreds of miles. 

 

Edited July 19, 2022 by Moontanman

[zapatos]

1 hour ago, Moontanman said:

Russia will be rebuilt with western money and emerge better than before.

There will be no western money and there will be no Russia. It is a complete restart.

[SergUpstart]

On 7/19/2022 at 7:08 AM, MigL said:

Raytheon just successfully tested their hypersonic missile.

I imagine that within 6 months The US will have considerably more of them than Russia has.

And how many have you calculated for China?