Re: Re: Coming solar storms could be 20 times worse than K...

[Guest guest]

There are a few reasons for this.

1. The US shipbuilding industry was one of the first industries to be lost. Very few ships are made in the US anymore and our merchant marine has gone from the greatest in the world to a minor player. Losing all of that capacity means we've lost a lot of know how and speed.

2. I think there are only two major shipbuilding firms that build for the Navy. One is up North and the other is here in Virginia. Some smaller yards exist, like I think one in Mobile Alabama, but that is just a slip or two and no real urgency at any of the yards. Work progresses slowly and I've read much about shoddy workmanship at the yards as well.

3. The Admirals are part of the problem as is the whole procurement system. In WWII, costs were held down and production kept high by the simple expedient of creating a base design and sticking to it for a production run. Small changes could be made like adding some guns or electronics, but nothing really structural or major. Significant changes would be made in the next series of ships of which a number would be built, and so on. Today the admirals will make change after change to the classes of ships. Each change requires all manner of recalculations of other element which in turn affect other elements by which time more changes have been made and so on. All of this adds to cost and time to build the ships and increases their complexity. Contractors also benefit because they can pad the costs of the ships which is why they cost so much.

4. We have fewer ships and they are large and complicated. We calls ships today destroyers that are bigger than WWII cruisers. They should be called what they are but for some arcane reason they are still called destroyers. Probably some weird budgeting rule or the like. The ships are also expensive because of all the electronics on them and the expensive missiles. Because we only build a few versions of each class of ship, they are naturally more expensive per unit than a larger run.

5. The Navy is demanding newer models of ships. These prototypes are very expensive and most of them aren't working out very well. The emphasis now is stealth, just like with planes. I think this is a silly idea for ships: smaller boats maybe but not ships. After all, if the ship is using radar it is going to stand out like a sore thumb to the right gear, and those emissions can be used to target the ship. All the stealth designs I've seen are big, vastly undergunned and just looking to be sunk.

Now:

Oddly enough, there is a hull class that is very effective and works very well. I don't remember which class that is, the maybe, but it is an older hull type. Anyway, instead of wasting money on new designs, the navy could make modifications to this hull and have working ships that meet their specs in short order for low cost. Just start cranking them out. We could even make gun heavy versions with Marines for patrol duty and so on. We could then keep some cruiser class ships for the Aegis system and the like. I've also wondered why we don't strengthen a freighter class ship with radar and lots of missiles. Such a vessel somewhat hardened would be as resistant to modern missiles as the warships, which is to say not very. Still, a freighter hull would cost less to modify and with the crew concentrated in the rear they would have a chance of surviving a hit.

The thing about surface ships is that they all could be made obsolete with a simple technology. If a nation decided to put a conventional warhead in a ballistic missile with the right kind of guidance kit, any ship in hundreds of miles of a coastline could be attacked and probably sunk. We had a missile called the Pershing I think it was. It was a land based, short range missile that had a radar on the warhead that could hit within 100 feet or so of the target. Since that was 1950's technology, modern missiles could be even more accurate than that and maybe even take evasive action on the way in. It would be expensive, which is the rationale for why we don't have such missiles, but if each missile costs $50 million, each US carrier costs billions. Sending a few dozen missiles in at a carrier would be cost effective, and even one hit could cause the carrier to be withdrawn for repairs.

Which leads to the last thing I'll mention. Ships are big and expensive. Modern warships are also very fragile with no real armor. So, they rely on defensive weapons to protect themselves. Look up the protections on a US carrier. There isn't much there, certainly not considering how big and expensive the machines are. I know they are supposed to also rely on support ship in the carrier group, but there are the same way: not much defense. They could be overwhelmed and pick off some support ships and the carrier will leave. Throw in the ballistic missiles and the fleet has real trouble.

This goes back to stealth. The only real stealth boats are submarines. Amusingly, the US antisubmarine capability is weak, so weak that on exercises Chinese subs got within firing range not long ago. Targeting a support ships instead, like an antiaircraft specialist, would probably succeed and cause the group to leave. Anyway, the subs wouldn't have to worry about the ballistic missiles much or most other systems. Given that missiles are quite accurate and have longer reach than aircraft without the worry of losing pilots, carriers aren't so much needed.

In a message dated 6/14/2010 9:05:03 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, no_reply writes:

Here is what I find interesting...WWII happens and decomissioned ships are upgraded and recommissioned swiftly. Pearl Harbor happens and in no time at all, the sunken ships are lifted out of the water, patched, fixed, and set to sail in hardly any time at all.