Navy thread

[Llarry]

An often-used destroyer weapon of the World War II era disappeared soon after the war. Surface launched heavy torpedoes (21-inch or 533mm diameter) -- usually mounted in quaduple tubes (or quintuple tubes) like those on the USS Dunlap (DD 384) in the photo --were a feature of all U.S. destroyers but were no longer fitted from the 1950s. There was some thought of fitting heavy Mark 48 torpedoes to U.S. surface combatants in the 1960s, but the effort never bore fruit.

In the modern era, U.S. Navy surface combatants are fitted with smaller 12.75-inch (324mm) torpedo tubes used for antisubmarine torpedoes; these are strictly a close-in ASW weapon.

[Llarry]

The U.S. Navy is planning to buy a number of somewhat smaller underway replenishment ships to support the fleet. Replenishment ships carry ship and aviation fuel, general supplies and weapons to allow combatants to stay at sea rather than pull into port. The new ship may be designated T-AOL.

Current replenishment ships include two large multiproduct ships (T-AOE), fleet oilers (T-AO) and ammunition/cargo ships (T-AKE).

The problem (as always) is funding. Each T-AOL is likely to cost over $500 million and would be smaller than the T-AOs (see photo) currently being built. Some capacity to carry weapons would be desirable; the T-AOs cannot carry weapons.

[Llarry]

The nuclear-powered aircraft carrier John F. Kennedy (CVN 79) is expected to be commissioned and ultimately be assigned to the Pacific Fleet in 2025 after several years of delays. The Kennedy is the second carrier of the Gerald R. Ford class to be built.

The photo shows the ship just after launching in 2019.

[Llarry]

Cross-section of an aircraft carrier

[Lady Jane]

Part of a gearbox from a WWII battleship.

[Llarry]

Originally Posted by Lady Jane

Part of a gearbox from a WWII battleship.


Attachment 3687432

I suspect that the main reduction gears are far larger than the one in the picture.

[M-technik-3]

No mention of the replenishment ship Stena Immaculate being rammed in what appears to be intentional.

Covert War backlash from Russia?

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c62z9ee68y6o

[Llarry]

During the final days of the last presidency, names for the next two aircraft carriers have been announced:

CVN 82 will be the USS William J. Clinton
CVN 83 will be the USS George W. Bush

The tradition is that U.S. Navy ship names, if named for persons, are named for deceased persons. Like many other Navy traditions, this seems to have been discarded. This old Navy man will increase the speed at which he rocks in the rocking chair and bite a bit harder on the stem of the pipe!

[Llarry]

Originally Posted by Llarry

An often-used destroyer weapon of the World War II era disappeared soon after the war. Surface launched heavy torpedoes (21-inch or 533mm diameter) -- usually mounted in quaduple tubes (or quintuple tubes) like those on the USS Dunlap (DD 384) in the photo --were a feature of all U.S. destroyers but were no longer fitted from the 1950s. There was some thought of fitting heavy Mark 48 torpedoes to U.S. surface combatants in the 1960s, but the effort never bore fruit.

The ship type chosen for stern-launched 21" Mk 48 heavy torpedoes was the destroyer escort (DE and DEG; redesignated frigates in the 1970s) and there were a number of these ships built with stern tubes.

Here is a photo of a test launch of a Mk 48 torpedo from a stern tube of the USS Talbot (DEG 4).

[Llarry]

It appears to me that the days of the time-tested Harpoon antiship cruise missile may be numbered. Several years ago, the U.S. Navy adopted the Norwegian-developed Naval Strike Missile (NSM) for use on Littoral Combat Ships (LCSs), giving the LCS significant strike capability.

In a related development, the U.S. Marine Corps is now using the same missile to equip land-based mobile launcher units of Marine Littoral Regiments.

By comparison with the Harpoon, the NSM is slightly faster and has longer range. The Marine use is an interesting potential game changer; the concept is for the Marines to occupy islands in the Pacific and use the planned medium landing ships (LSMs) to reposition Marine units between various islands, making for a difficult targeting problem for a potential Chinese adversary.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naval_Strike_Missile

[Llarry]

Interesting mid-1920s photo of the crowded hangar deck of the USS Langley (CV 1), the USN's first aircraft carrier. Most of the aircraft are Vought VE-7s of VF-2 (Fighter Squadron Two). There is minimal protection from the elements.

[Llarry]

The U.S. Navy's Spruance class destroyers were the first gas turbine-powered ones to enter service, although they have all been retired now. (The basic hull design lives on in a few Aegis class missile cruisers, though.)

Anyway, destroyers are named after American and Navy heroes and when it came time to select a name for DD 981 in the mid-1970s, the name John Hancock was chosen. Hancock was one of the signers of the Declaration of Independence and signed the document with a flourish.

When it came to painting the name of the USS John Hancock on the stern of the ship, someone came up with the excellent idea to scale up John Hancock's signature from 1776.

[Lady Jane]

A tidbit of forgotten naval history: An abandoned Japanese mini-sub in Alaska in WWII and how it looks today.

[Llarry]

Originally Posted by Llarry

The U.S. Navy and Marine Corps have developed a concept for expeditionary advanced base operations (EABO) designed to counter any wartime expansion of Chinese forces into the Pacific Ocean.

The Marine Corps portion of the concept is the conversion of legacy regiments into Marine Littoral Regiments, which would position relatively small Marine units armed with antiship missiles on Pacific islands. These units would be mobile using the Navy portion of the concept, which is a new ship designated medium landing ship (LSM). The LSM is envisioned as a relatively low-cost vessel that would be bought in numbers and could reposition Marine forces among the islands. From 18 to 35 LSMs would be purchased, and the Navy thinks these modestly sized amphibious vessels could blend in with other ship traffic and be difficult for an adversary to track. In the same vein, it might be useful to give them non-standard paint jobs, so it is difficult for a foe to discern that they are Navy ships. In the same vein, it might be good to vary the paint jobs on these ships so as to disguise their Navy affiliation to a potential foe.

The Navy LSM, however, appears to be headed for trouble. Navy planning documents estimate the cost per ship to be about $150 million. The Congressional Budget Office believes that cost is far too low and that a more realistic cost would be $340-430 million per ship.

Earlier this month, the Navy withdrew its request for proposals from shipbuilders after the proposals estimated far greater costs, so it appears that industry agrees with CBO. Presumably the Navy will re-issue a request for proposals with new cost estimates.

There has been some progress on the Navy/Marine program to build medium landing ships (LSMs). The details are not yet clear to me, but the Navy is pursuing two alternative designs:
1) An LSM based on the U.S. Army vehicle landing ship (LSV) and displacing about 2500 tons full load.
2) A Dutch company's tank landing ship (LST) of smaller size.

Hopefully these can be built at a reasonable cost. I believe both designs have both bow and stern ramps to enable vehicles to drive straight through. Given the desire for these ships to blend in with maritime traffic in the Pacific, there might be an advantage to having more than one design.

Meanwhile the Marine Corps has organized two Marine Littoral Regiments -- One in Hawaii and one in Okinawa, Japan. As many as four MLRs will ultimately be stationed in the Pacific. These new MLRs will be slightly over half the size of a traditional Marine Infantry Regiment and consist of an infantry battalion, an air defense element, an anti-ship missile battery and support.

[ezaircon4jc]

Originally Posted by Llarry

There has been some progress on the Navy/Marine program to build medium landing ships (LSMs). The details are not yet clear to me, but the Navy is pursuing two alternative designs:
1) An LSM based on the U.S. Army vehicle landing ship (LSV).
2) A Dutch company's tank landing ship (LST) of similar size.

Hopefully these can be built at a reasonable cost. I believe both designs have both bow and stern ramps to enable vehicles to drive straight through.

Meanwhile the Marine Corps has organized two Marine Littoral Regiments -- One in Hawaii and one in Okinawa, Japan. As many as four MLRs will ultimately be stationed in the Pacific.

I'd hate to be on one of those in rough seas! The flat-bottomed LPD I was on was bad enough! We had a pendulum at the back of CIC to "measure" roll. It's graduations were:

Look for cookies

Eat cookies

Squirt cookies

[M-technik-3]

I wished I had taken pictures of when I did the ground based Phalanx system trailer to bring it to Baghdad back in 2005 ish.
was an easy up load with C5 Heavy Duty winch doing triple line configuration. Quite heavy too if memory serves me it was 175K

[Llarry]

The USS Massachusetts (BB 2) was commissioned in 1896 and featured turrets with twin 13-inch main guns. On at least the forward turret there was a statue of Victory.

[Lady Jane]

Originally Posted by Llarry

On at least the forward turret there was a statue of Victory.

TRIVIA: The statue was created by artist Bela Pratt around 1900.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bela_Pratt

[Llarry]

Rather than start a new U.S. Coast Guard thread, I will continue to comment on Coast Guard matters in this Navy thread.

The Coast Guard budget may see a doubling in the budget currently under consideration. In particular, the large icebreakers may see robust funding.

Although I prefer to pay lower taxes (!), the state of the USCG is almost shameful -- they are perennially last, it seems, when budgets are put together. It's about damn time, I say!

[Llarry]

Naval historians will no doubt argue the theoretical outcome of a battle between the Imperial Japanese Navy battleship Yamato (or sister Musashi) and the U.S. Navy battleship Iowa (or one of her sisters) for all eternity, but such a battle never happened. By the end of the Pacific War in 1945, both IJN ships were sunk by aircraft. All four Iowa class BBs survived the war and went on to serve for many more years in the USN and were modified to fire cruise missiles in later years.

The Yamato was the largest -- measured by displacement tonnage -- battleship ever built by any country and mounted the largest-caliber main battery: 18.1-inch (460 mm) guns. But the Japanese battleships were significantly slower and less maneuverable that the U.S. ships.

The Iowa class battleships were slightly longer than the Japanese BBs. Their main battery was 16-inch (400 mm) guns. Their most important advantage probably was superior fire control -- American radar outpaced Japanese technology during WWII. After all, no matter the size of the shell, it must impact the target to have the desired effect. In ballistics tests after the war, U.S. analysts concluded that the smaller U.S. shells would have done fairly well against the Japanese battleship armor.

The debate will continue for all time, but I believe the key point is that no such battle would have happened in a one-versus-one match-up; other forces, particularly aircraft (in which the U.S. held an overwhelming advantage) would have played a role.

EDIT: An interesting comparison between the two classes of battleships; American on top, Japanese on bottom.

[Llarry]

It looks like Congress and the Navy have finally gotten off the dime on new submarine construction, although I'm sure there will be bumps on the road ahead. The Navy has signed contracts for US$18.5 billion for "workforce development" in submarine construction shipyards and for the construction of the future Baltimore (SSN 812) and Atlanta (SSN 813), both Block V attack boats.

[Llarry]

In addition to the sexy combatant ships with their missiles and other weapons, a capable navy needs a number of smaller, less glamorous ships to accomplish other tasks. While such auxiliary ships are not as expensive to build, they often get lost in the budget discussions and end up serving long past their intended lifetimes.

The U.S. Navy's Navajo class towing, salvage and rescue ships (T-ATSs) are an example. Ten of these useful ships have been authorized and will join the Military Sealift Command starting late in 2025 through 2030.

The ships are 263 feet long with a wide 59-foot beam and displace over 5,000 tons. The crew of civilian mariners numbers just 23, but extra room is reserved for Navy divers or salvage specialists or explosive ordnance disposal specialists as needed.