[Lady Jane]

Originally Posted by Llarry

recent modifications to allow operation of F-35B STOVL fighters.

I guess they had to re-enforce the deck to prevent it from melting by the jet downward exhaust. Right?

[Llarry]

Originally Posted by Lady Jane

I guess they had to re-enforce the deck to prevent it from melting by the jet downward exhaust. Right?

Yes, indeed. They probably used a bosun's punch in the process..

[Llarry]

American nuclear-powered attack submarines (SSNs) have four 21-inch diameter torpedo tubes used to launch Mark 48 heavy torpedoes. Once the four ready torpedoes have been launched, the tubes must be reloaded, which can take an hour or more for all four. In addition, the boat can only accommodate so many reloads (while the number of weapons carried is classified, open sources credit the SSNs with a total load of two dozen or slightly more Mark 48 torpedoes.)

SSNs also have a number of launch tubes for decoys. These are much smaller than the torpedo tubes.

Imagine this scenario: One or more U.S. Navy SSNs is present when, for instance, the PRC mounts an invasion of Taiwan. The invasion fleet consists of a number of large amphibious ships -- no doubt escorted by destroyers and frigates -- but also, given the short distances involved, might very well include a huge number of large and small merchant or even fishing vessels. Basically anything that floats and can carry troops.

To continue the scenario, the U.S. submarines (assuming the U.S. comes to the aid of Taiwan) fire torpedoes at the large number of high-value targets at a furious pace but are soon out of Mark 48s and now unable to continue the fight. Wasting a precious Mark 48 on a fishing boat seems dubious.

Thus, the concept of the Compact Rapid Attack Weapon (CRAW) was born. A mini-torpedo, if you will, that can be used on smaller lower-value targets and allow the submarine to carry more offensive weapons. Prototypes have been built and tested: In approximate terms, the concept is perhaps a 6.75" diameter weapon some 8-9 feet long and weighing just a couple of hundred pounds at launch. Electric propulsion using a 100 hp system is contemplated. See the attached photo for a prototype. Some options include launch from decoy tubes, which are pretty small, or perhaps launch from additional somewhat larger tubes added to the submarine. The ability to reload would be critical.

The capability is probably a few years from fruition.

EDIT: I've previously covered the Mark 48 21" heavy torpedo but let me recap some of the numbers:
Procurement Cost: Per Wikipedia 5.4 million each, but the latest Navy budget submission drops that number to about 4 million each.
Production rate: Currently only about a dozen or two Mark 48s per year, but older Mark 48s are also being upgraded to the latest Mod 7, 8 and 9 standard.
Dimensions: 21" diameter, 19 feet long, weighing 3,700 pounds
Speed, range & depth capability: All classified, but open sources credit the Mark 48 with a max speed of about 55 knots, a range of more than 25 nautical miles at the lower speed of 40 knots and with a depth capability of about 2500 feet.

[Boomer 2019]

Originally Posted by Llarry

So you were aboard during the fire in January 1969?

Yes. I was very lucky. Ended up with flash burns, light shrapnel, and a concussion. I spent my time fighting the fire with other AO's on the flight deck rounding up unexploded ordnance and dumping it over the side before the fire got to it. We lost 34 dead on board that day, and of the dozens of severely wounded who were helicoptered to hospitals ashore I am sure that there were more deaths. RIP Shipmates. Bravo Zulu.

I am a proud member of the Tonkin Gulf Yacht Club. I have both the T shirt and the hat.

[Lady Jane]

Originally Posted by Boomer 2019

Yes. I was very lucky. Ended up with flash burns, light shrapnel, and a concussion.

Wow...!

Story here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Enterprise_fire

[Llarry]

Originally Posted by Lady Jane

I guess they had to re-enforce the deck to prevent it from melting by the jet downward exhaust. Right?

The other major alteration was to widen the flight deck at the bow to better enable short takeoffs by F-35Bs.

[Llarry]

The first U.S. Navy cruise missile was the Vought Regulus. The Navy bought 514 missiles and the Regulus was operational from 1955 to 1964. The missile itself was subsonic and jet-powered -- launched from an aircraft carrier deck, a cruiser or a surfaced submarine using rocket boosters. The warhead was nuclear only. The Regulus had a range of about 500 miles.

Launching from a carrier was a major inconvenience with the deck needing to be cleared of many aircraft, etc., and was rarely done. Cruisers and submarines were the primary platforms of choice.

Although a couple of older WWII-era subs were modified for the Regulus, three purpose-built Regulus submarines were built. Two of them, the Grayback and Growler (SSGs 574 and 577) were Diesel-electric and one, the USS Halibut (SSGN 587) was nuclear-propelled. The boats needed a large hangar to house the missiles when submerged. Launching required a protracted period on the surface, as the Regulus missile was command-guided from the launching platform for the first couple of hundred miles,

The Regulus was a very poor second to the new Polaris ballistic missiles carried and when the ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs) became operational, the Regulus was deemed obsolete.

The three purpose-built Regulus submarines were given new missions: the conventional Grayback and Growler became transport submarines (LPSSs) that operated with SEALs and Recon Marines, etc., and the Halibut became a special mission submarine (SSN).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SSM-N-8_Regulus

Vought also developed an improved Regulus II which doubled the range and was supersonic, but never became operational. It sure looked impressive, though.

[Llarry]

Some pages ago @Lady Jane asked me what the difference between the various sizes of combatant ships was and I discussed cruisers, destroyers, frigates and corvettes. Those are all ocean-going ships, but even smaller in size are fast attack craft (FAC) used by many navies. The motor torpedo boat (MTB; PT boat in American parlance) or motor gunboat (MGB) are good examples and there are a number of navies that still use FAC. More usually these days the weapon of choice for a FAC is the antiship missile.

The German Navy called FACs "Schnellboot" which is appropriate since they are invariably speedy little ships.

Here's a textbook example of a fast attack craft: The German Navy Type 143A Gepard class Schnellboot. A 76mm gun forward, four launch tubes for Exocet antiship missiles (range 20+ miles) and anti-aircraft capability in the form of a short-range Rolling Airframe Missile (RAM) launcher aft (the same launcher frequently seen on U.S. and allied navy ships.) The ten ships of the Type 143A class were built in the 1980s and retired about 6-10 years ago, leaving the German Navy without schnellboot for the first time. Two went to Ghana. Note that the hull number of this ship is P6122, where P = patrol. As opposed to F for frigate and corvette.

Some particulars other than armament:
390 ton displacement
57.6 m (189') long
7.8 m (25.6') beam
2.6 m (8.5') draft
4 Diesels/13,200 hp for 40 knots
Crew of 36

Considering the restricted waters that the German Navy had to defend in the 1980s, this type of combatant makes good sense. With the end of the Cold War, retirement of these makes good sense, too.

[Llarry]

Originally Posted by Llarry

American nuclear-powered attack submarines (SSNs) have four 21-inch diameter torpedo tubes used to launch Mark 48 heavy torpedoes. Once the four ready torpedoes have been launched, the tubes must be reloaded, which can take an hour or more for all four. In addition, the boat can only accommodate so many reloads (while the number of weapons carried is classified, open sources credit the SSNs with a total load of two dozen or slightly more Mark 48 torpedoes.)
//snip//
EDIT: I've previously covered the Mark 48 21" heavy torpedo but let me recap some of the numbers:
Procurement Cost: Per Wikipedia 5.4 million each, but the latest Navy budget submission drops that number to about 4 million each.
Production rate: Currently only about a dozen or two Mark 48s per year, but older Mark 48s are also being upgraded to the latest Mod 7, 8 and 9 standard.
Dimensions: 21" diameter, 19 feet long, weighing 3,700 pounds
Speed, range & depth capability: All classified, but open sources credit the Mark 48 with a max speed of about 55 knots, a range of more than 25 nautical miles at the lower speed of 40 knots and with a depth capability of about 2500 feet.

The other thing about torpedo capacity is that every torpedo-tube-fired Tomahawk cruise missile that you carry is one less Mark 48 that you have room for. The most recent Virginia class SSNs have been lengthened considerably to accommodate more Tomahawk vertical launch tubes, as it seems the emphasis is more on land attack than war at sea. I'm no engineer or naval architect, but I'd argue that a greater torpedo capacity makes sense, too, if you allow for the option of war at sea. And while you're at it, how about six tubes instead of four?

[Llarry]

The U.S. is sending a number of Army vessels (yes, the Army has landing ships) and a large Navy auxiliary ship to build a pier in Gaza to channel humanitarian aid. (See photos)

This sounds good but these are, to the best of my knowledge, unarmed or minimally armed ships and there is a considerable amount of anti-American sentiment in the area. I hope all goes well and there are no incidents.

The third photo is of the type of floating pier component that will make up the pier. In the case of this photo, it is not a pier but you get the idea. To the lower left are three amphibious warping tugs, powered flat vessels that are used to maneuver the parts of the pier. The finished pier will not be very suitable if there are high seas or a storm.

[Llarry]

Readers of this thread know that I do not think much of the littoral combat ships bought by the Navy over the past couple of decades. The mission modules for the ships -- an integral part of the program -- largely failed to appear, leaving them as lightly-armed combatants without a mission.

The one exception was the mine countermeasures modules for the Independence class LCS, which have been fitted to some ships in the Pacific. To support the mine countermeasures effort, aviation detachments are assigned to each such ship. The detachment consists of one Sikorsky MH-60S Seahawk manned helicopter and one Northrop Grumman MQ-8C unmanned helicopter. The MQ-8C is an adaptation of the Bell 407 helicopter. The U.S. Navy bought 38 MQ-8Cs and has assigned 10 of them to two MH-60S squadrons; the other 28 UAVs are kept in storage in case of loss.

The other factor that has improved the LCS is the incorporation of antiship missile launchers, visible just forward of the bridge in the first photo. These RGM-184A Naval Strike Missiles finally give the LCS some bite.

I also have not yet introduced the SeaRAM launcher, visible above the hangar in both ship photos. The RAM launcher as used on aircraft carriers and surface combatants, does not include radar and the missile must be cued to an incoming threat externally. The SeaRAM gets around this problem by integrating the radar of the 20mm CIWS gun mount but substituting the RAM missile in place of the gun, effectively making it a standalone defense weapon.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indepe...al-combat-ship

[Llarry]

Close-in Weapons Systems: Phalanx versus Goalkeeper

In the late 1980s, General Electric proposed a significant upgrade to the Phalanx CIWS and its 20mm Vulcan gun. GE proposed an eight-barrel 35mm gun which -- like the 20mm -- would have a discarding sabot and a shell smaller than 35mm. Not only would be shell have greater weight but would also have slightly higher muzzle velocity. In addition, tests showed that the existing Phalanx had slightly better accuracy than Goalkeeper. If the new 35mm Phalanx could maintain that advantage... I should note that the Goalkeeper has a range advantage of about 1,000 meters, which has the potential to be critical when considering a missile coming in at high speed.

The UK's Royal Navy was most interested in this new development. Unfortunately, the timing was poor: the Cold War was ending and the U.S. Congress was tightening the purse strings. The GE 35mm CIWS was stillborn. What came out of the program, though, was a switch in the Royal Navy from Goalkeeper to Phalanx CIWS. The U.S. Navy soldiered on with Phalanx, as it does so to this day. I note, however, that Phalanx is no longer fitted to the latest missile destroyers, which have the Rolling Airframe Missile (RAM) instead for close-in defense; Phalanx continues to be used for aircraft carriers, which use both systems.

[Llarry]

In the 1960s, the concept of a multi-product underway replenishment ships became reality with the building and commissioning of four very large "fast combat support ships" (AOEs) for the U.S. Navy. Rather than the older system of an aircraft carrier taking on fuel from an oiler, weapons from an ammunition ship and general and food stores from a refrigerated supply ship, the AOE combined all those functions to provide the fleet with "one-stop shopping."

The AOEs were very large ships: 793 feet long and 53,000 tons full load. They were also fast; not quite as fast as a carrier or destroyer, but 26 knots was faster than the traditional underway replenishment ship. The initial two AOEs of the Sacramento class used steam turbines originally built in the 1940s for the cancelled battleship Kentucky. In the 1960s, manpower was considered to be low-cost and the large 600-man crews required to operate the AOEs was not a concern.

When they entered the fleet, the AOEs got high praise for their performance. The initial four AOEs with steam propulsion were followed by additional gas turbine-powered ships. The larger AOEs were supplemented by seven smaller "replenishment oilers" (AORs) that were not quite as large and not as fast but still provided multi-product services to fleet units. (not pictured)

It was only after the end of the draft and the pay raises for junior sailors in the 1970s that the bill seemed to come due. Manpower costs for such large crews doomed them. In the 1990s, the AORs were decommissioned after 20-25 years of service. The next step was to transfer the AOEs from the active Navy to the Military Sealift Command. As T-AOEs, the defensive armament was removed and the vast majority of the crew became civilian mariners with a small Navy detachment of communications personnel and a helicopter detachment for helo transfer of weapons and supplies. The initial four steam-powered AOEs were retired after about 35 years of service. The four 1990s-built turbine-powered ships remained in service with much smaller crews: about 180 civilians plus a couple of dozen Navy personnel and a large Navy helicopter detachment. Two of those later T-AOEs have now been stricken and two remain active.

One final note on underway replenishment in the U.S. Navy: Over the years, the use of helicopters in vertical replenishment has become ever more important. While fuel transfer still requires that two ships sail close alongside with fuel hoses connecting them, the helicopter has become the tool of choice for transferring most other items.

[Llarry]

The line-up of ships at the Naval Base Norfolk piers is generally impressive on any day of the year but back in 2012 I though it extra impressive in this shot.

[Lady Jane]

Originally Posted by Llarry

The line-up of ships at the Naval Base Norfolk piers is generally impressive on any day of the year but back in 2012 I though it extra impressive in this shot.

What are those black "snakes" in the water at the back? Oil and gas scrubbers?
And why is there a submarine keeping guard?

[Llarry]

Originally Posted by Lady Jane

What are those black "snakes" in the water at the back? Oil and gas scrubbers?
And why is there a submarine keeping guard?

The "black snakes" are security barriers, I believe, to keep idiot onlookers away.

On the submarine, sorry...I cannot divulge that information. (I do not see a sub -- just a water current?)

[Llarry]

That Norfolk lineup is particularly impressive given that there are only four aircraft carriers homeported in Norfolk at present, I believe. (I think I count five in the photo.)

The Pacific side is a bit different with one carrier homeported in Yokosuka, Japan, and at least one in Everett, Washington. The others (five total in the Pacific) at Naval Air Station North Island across the San Diego Bay from the Naval Base.

During the Vietnam War era (and before) there were 15 attack carriers (CVA and CVAN) (9 Pacific divided between North Island and Alameda on San Francisco Bay and the one in Japan; 6 Atlantic divided between Norfolk and Jacksonville, Florida). In addition, there were a number of antisubmarine carriers (CVS) homeported in Long Beach (Los Angeles area) and Quonset Point, Rhode Island. All that plus a dedicated training carrier homeported in the Pensacola, Florida, area. The combat power of a modern nuclear-powered aircraft carrier is awesome, but we sure had a lot more carriers back then! We've gone from two dozen or so to nine.

[Lady Jane]

Originally Posted by Llarry

(I do not see a sub -- just a water current?)

Periscope depth.

[Llarry]

Originally Posted by Lady Jane

Periscope depth.

Admittedly the wake from the periscope varies with speed and the clarity of the water also varies.

[Llarry]

Originally Posted by Lady Jane

Periscope depth.

If I remember correctly, periscope depth (expressed as the depth of the keel below the surface of the water) is something around 55 feet. I doubt that the Naval Base Norfolk has that kind of depth. Probably an Iranian or Houthi minisub.

[Boomer 2019]

Originally Posted by Llarry

The "black snakes" are security barriers, I believe, to keep idiot onlookers away.

On the submarine, sorry...I cannot divulge that information. (I do not see a sub -- just a water current?)

I see nothing....

[Boomer 2019]

There are 5 aircraft carriers (CVN's) shown. CVN 69 USS Eisenhower; CVN 77 USS Bush; CVN 65 USS Enterprise; CVN 72 USS Lincoln; CVN 75 USS Truman.

Between the Enterprise and the Lincoln is an LHD (Landing Helicopter Dock) of the Wasp Class, (AKA home for wayward Marines). One of 4 in the picture. It is the USS Wasp LHD 5. The other LHD's shown are also of the Wasp Class, USS Iwo Jima LHD 7; USS Makin Island LHD 8, and one I can't identify.