Modern vs Old navy

[Gargamel]

I keep reading references to how small our (US) Navy has shrunk. We had X number ships during WWI, and now look at how few we have! We've slacked off! We must build back up to those levels!

To me this is an apples/oranges type comparison. The two navies are completely different in capabilities. I'd wager that a handful of modern warships would be able to completely destroy that WWI navy, without getting a scratch. One would be able to do it if it didn't have to worry about running out of ammo.

To me, it's a matter of meeting current needs, not having X number of ships.

/rant

discuss/

EDIT: Missed the other similar thread, sorry.

[ikalugin]

Yes and no, for example you need x surface action groups to cover y operational areas. For thos x surface action groups you need z numbers of s sets of ships.

So in a way, despite the changes in how we fight the naval wars, some things do not change because a single surface action group or a ship cannot be in two different oceans at the same time.

[Mr Quatro]

The answer may be like in that other thread about modern submarines: http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=229137

Perhaps it is the men and women that would qualify for a bigger and better Navy that are missing.

Where are the romantics of old that wanted to go to down to the sea and sail the seven seas?

[Oberon]

Americans think their navy has shrunk?







But yes, as Barry put it during the elections before last, we also have fewer horses and bayonets than we used to. It's all power projection and economics. Of course, that also means that if one unit is lost, the expense is greater which is a problem, but I think at some point in the future smaller drone vessels may well help fix some of that problem by being able to be manufactured in greater numbers and operate autonomously.

[eddie]

Our new President (not getting into politics here though) wants to increase the size of our Navy to at least 355 ships, IIRC. Some say this is great because of all the jobs it will create. But the cost of that is so incredible!! They want to build the new Nuclear Class subs, Columbia is the name of this class, but in 2017 the cost is $100 Billion. The Navy has ordered 12 so far, but when the s subs are completed in the future, costs will have gone up to $128 Billion! Now throw in all the other ships the Navy wants, and my question is, how the heck do we pay for it? How far will our deficit grow too? It ain't cheap anymore.

[Oberon]

Well, you'll pay for it with your tax dollars, and then once they're built then you can get someone else to pay for them...like China maybe.

[eddie]

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by eddie

Our new President (not getting into politics here though) wants to increase the size of our Navy to at least 355 ships, IIRC. Some say this is great because of all the jobs it will create. But the cost of that is so incredible!! They want to build the new Nuclear Class subs, Columbia is the name of this class, but in 2017 the cost is $100 Billion. The Navy has ordered 12 so far, but when the s subs are completed in the future, costs will have gone up to $128 Billion! Now throw in all the other ships the Navy wants, and my question is, how the heck do we pay for it? How far will our deficit grow too? It ain't cheap anymore.

Is that not a reduction in real terms Eddie?

My current understanding (and the link below) states there are approximately 430 ships in service or in reserve atm.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/mili...-entire-fleet/

[eddie]

I'll double check Jim, getting old over here, one of those senior moments again,lol

[eddie]

According to the US Navy times Jim, we have 272 ships as of now, Trump wants to bring it up to at least 350. With that buildup, plus the Air Force wants the new B-21 Raider, a stealthier B2 bomber, which the USAF won't say how much they cost, classified info, and they are going to upgrade our nuclear weapons and systems, I got a feeling it would take a super computer to write out the cost of all this.

https://www.navytimes.com/articles/d...lors-350-ships

[mapuc]

One thing haven't changed from old navy to modern Navy and it is the hitting percentage.

When I play a mission in Command and I give a warship or groups of warship order to use their canon to engage an enemy vessel I can see how shot after shot miss the target with so and so many feet.

Markus

[vienna]

Old Navy? Somewhat decent clothes, some a bit pricey...

Seriously, it is not a question of quantity, it is a question of quality and usefulness. Going from 272 craft to 350 sounds laudable, but just what kind of craft will those new 78 entail? The original purpose of a navy was to transport troops and provide supporting firepower, and, if necessary, engage enemy craft sent to stop you own craft. With the advent of cannon and mass firepower, the engagements were more often further offshore and out in the open sea. Then came air power and the ability to deter and destroy opposing naval forces from far greater distances. When it became possible for opposing naval force to engage each other from far beyond the visible horizon, the classic types of craft soon became a hindrance rather than an advantage: there's a reason nobody builds or operates battleships anymore. Now we have missiles capable of traveling hundreds of miles, thousands in the case of ICBMs, and the efficacy of building such large 'sitting duck' targets such aircraft carriers is being questioned. Right now, subs seem to be the only craft capable of still being able to bring the fight to the enemy, efficiently, and with cost effectiveness, at least as far as naval warfare is concerned. Even that is being question as more and more of modern military strategy is easing towards the use of unmanned air and sea craft in order to deliver a blow. The naval world is changing; a single sub, even some of the diesel subs, equipped with nuclear weapons, could pretty much demolish a surface task force with ease...

So, what do you do with those 78 new craft; build up the carrier fleet, creating more "sitting ducks"; build up the nuclear sub fleet, knowing the next wave of technology could render them mission ineffective? It really is not the quantity: it is the quality and usefulness...



<O>

[Oberon]

God...could you imagine 78 more LCS's?

[kraznyi_oktjabr]

Originally Posted by Jimbuna

Is that not a reduction in real terms Eddie?

My current understanding (and the link below) states there are approximately 430 ships in service or in reserve atm.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/mili...-entire-fleet/

I think it depends on how you count. "Traditionally" U.S. Navy has counted auxiliaries (today USNS) separately from commissioned warships (today USS). That 430 vessel figure sounds ball park right if you include minesweepers, cargo ships, oilers and harbour tugs.

However couple of (or more) years ago when numbers were dropping low with FFGs d'comming and LCSes AWOL somebody in "five-sided-wind-tunnel" got bright idea of boosting fleet numbers by changing counting rules. After few pen strokes some "force multiplier" auxiliaries such as hospital ships (USNS Mercy and USNS Comfort) were counted equal with destroyers.

Don't know if that rather creative way to increase fleet size is still used.

[Kapitan]

Originally Posted by kraznyi_oktjabr

I think it depends on how you count. "Traditionally" U.S. Navy has counted auxiliaries (today USNS) separately from commissioned warships (today USS). That 430 vessel figure sounds ball park right if you include minesweepers, cargo ships, oilers and harbour tugs.

However couple of (or more) years ago when numbers were dropping low with FFGs d'comming and LCSes AWOL somebody in "five-sided-wind-tunnel" got bright idea of boosting fleet numbers by changing counting rules. After few pen strokes some "force multiplier" auxiliaries such as hospital ships (USNS Mercy and USNS Comfort) were counted equal with destroyers.

Don't know if that rather creative way to increase fleet size is still used.

Exactly what the british did in SDSR 2010 it also helped with the 2% problem for NATO



The navy of 20 years ago was less capable than the navy of today, units were more expendable they were cheaper and easier to produce take a look at the Spruance class and compare it with the Burke massive difference.

Also factor in the biggest cost to any armed force peoples wages, imagine paying the wages every month to a carrier crew of 5700 people, and then also paying the pensions of that lot when they retire and the new wages of new crew!

The navies of today require less ships due to the higher automation and sophistication however.

Take a long hard look at the Royal Navy if you place all the RN commitments around the world you have one serious issue we dont have the vessels to cover the job.

If you look at a ratio 1/3 are in over haul 1/3 in transit training or other duties or medium refits 1/3 on station what does that give the navy of 2020 ?

3/4 of a carrier 2 DDG's 4 1/3 FFG's and 2 1/3 SSN's and 3/4 of a landing ship
Hardly worth while is it when you think the Type 45's spend alot of time in port due to technical issues.

The RFA which is a civilian service is plugging the gap which is shameful they are now finding themselves fighting pirates in the gulf of Aden and drug runners in the Caribbean which is shameful.

To put it bluntly a navy can over stretch the RN has been at that point since 2010 and will remain so well into the 2020's and beyond.

Take a look at the next idea, 13 (we originally had 16) type 23's will be replaced by 8 type 26's and maybe followed by 5 smaller type 31's its a farce the real issue is we cannot continue our overseas commitments much longer we are also set in 2018 to loose HMS Ocean our only dedicated LPH to be replaced on station by RFA Argus.
Heres the other problem RFA Argus is not suited for a LPH role that was proved in 1995 and was the entire reasons HMS Ocean was built ! double standards

As for the USN they stress quality a 10 carrier strike group is more than enough to take down Russia and China together at sea the Russians dont have many DDG's infact if my memory serves it has just 17 major surface warships (non aircraft carriers) 2 kirovs (will be as of 2018) 3 slavas 7 udaloys and 5 sovremennys while the Chinese are pretty much photocopying theirs they already have the edge in terms of total numbers but whats the tech like would it stand up to a war im not so sure.

The USN is far healthier even at 250 ships than many other navies around the world take a look at Denmark in 2004 ceased all submarine operations, France a 2 carrier navy couldnt afford to build the second CDG carrier in this day and age its all down to two things.

Public opinion
Cost