Designing Small Destroyer Would Cost Years, Billions Of Loss

[280PLUS]

Defense Today
February 1, 2006
Pg. 1

Designing Small Destroyer Would Cost Years, Billions Of Loss

By Dave Ahearn

Designing a new, much smaller destroyer would cost the Navy at least part of its $7.5 billion investment in developing the cutting-edge DD(X) destroyer that now is poised for construction, and also would mean five years or so in designing and developing what would be a far lesser warship, a key admiral said in an interview.

Rear Adm. Mark Buzby, deputy director for surface warfare, said the resultant ship wouldn't provide the Navy with many capabilities it requires to counter the current and clearly foreseeable threat environment.

Further, the salient point here is that the Navy may not have the luxury of years to design another destroyer, he said.

While he declined to respond to a question specifically citing the threat of China and its 700-plus radar-guided missiles aimed at waters near Taiwan, an island the Navy might have to defend from a Chinese invasion, he did say the DD(X) would be vital to meet the sort of threat posed by a near-peer competitor nation.

China is amidst an enormous military buildup, purchasing or producing advanced destroyers, aircraft and super-quiet submarines. The Chinese navy in the next decade is on track to become larger than the U.S. Navy.

The DD(X) destroyer would be a stealthy ship, showing up on enemy radar screens as a small commercial vessel.

Buzby's comments come as some military analysts have suggested the Navy could obtain much of the advances of the DD(X) destroyer, a 14,500-ton ship, in a vessel costing far less that would displace perhaps 9,500 tons, or a frigate size of roughly 7,000 tons or so.

But Buzby said that the DD(X) would be a 14,500-ton ship because that is what is required to provide the capabilities the Navy needs to counter clearly visible threats in the near future.

The DD(X) already has been down-sized, Buzby noted. When the Navy began conceptualizing the ship, estimates of its size ranged from 9,000 to 17,000 or 18,000 tons.

Then the Navy began jettisoning some less-needed capabilities, establishing those most critical, and worked down from 18,000 tons to a 14,500 ton weapons platform, he said

To further diminish the ship by any substantial amount would mean losing capabilities required to meet known threats, he said.

For example, a downsized ship might still have two guns (the Advanced Gun System), capable of destroying targets as much as 100 miles distant, but it might lack sufficient numbers of Vertical Launching System (VLS) cells for missiles.

The DD(X) would use VLS to provide a shield against airborne threats, both for itself and for other Navy ships.

Further, a downsized ship might not have the stealthy sloping hull and reverse-raked bow that afford the DD(X) the ability to elude enemy radar detection, he said.

As well, a smaller vessel might not have the stability in high seas of a 14,500 ton ship, a critical point in a craft intended to conduct helicopter and unmanned aerial vehicle operations from its aft deck, he noted.

The next destroyer "needs the open ocean sea-keeping capabilities" of the DD(X), he said.

In moving to take out any single segment of the DD(X) during a downsizing move, that could affect the overall capability of the ship to counter the threats it must address, Buzby said.

Design and development of this futuristic ship "was not just a capricious" exercise in blithely assembling unrelated systems. Rather, "this was a fairly well thought-out" system of interrelated components working together as a unified entity, he said.

Losing Time, Money

Designing a new ship would leave a five- to-six-year gap in providing futuristic capabilities, "at a minimum," Buzby said.

Deciding at this late hour to deep-six the DD(X) design and start from scratch to plan a smaller vessel would create "a five- to six-year gap to get to where we are today" with the DD(X), ready for construction to begin, he said.

One proposal for designing a smaller destroyer would, to be sure, call for building four, or perhaps five, DD(X)s before shifting to a smaller destroyer, which by that time might be more or less fully designed.

But Buzby said the DD(X) is poised for a construction run now, having passed a critical design review in the fall, and this spring being set for a final design review and construction contract.

Further, he said, roughly $7.5 billion has been spent thus far on research and development of the new ship, and part of that investment would be lost if the DD(X) is abandoned or cut short in favor of a smaller ship.

To be sure, he added, some of the cutting-edge technology in the DD(X) program could be scavenged and incorporated in the sister ship, the future CG(X) cruiser, and in the next-generation CVN 21 aircraft carrier, such as sensors and radar suites.

The Navy, which at one time proposed building perhaps 24 to 30 DD(X)s, more recently suggested building just eight of the ships. Some lawmakers have suggested building just five, or perhaps one or two as technology demonstrators, or building no DD(X)s, moving instead to design a smaller and cheaper ship.

But the question is what would take the place of the DD(X) if another ship is to be designed and developed, and when that vessel might be available.

While Buzby declined to address the threat of China specifically, "there are capability gaps that exist today" in addressing threats posed by "a major peer competitor," he said.

In assessing the DD(X) program, "this ship helps fill that void," he said.

While the current Arleigh Burke DDG 51 Class of destroyers aren't stealthy, China possesses hundreds of radar-guided missiles. As well, North Korea and Iran also possess sophisticated missiles technology.

It is critical for the Navy to deploy ships able to counter nations with advanced military capabilities, he indicated.

Otherwise, lacking platforms with stealth and other advances, the Navy might be confronted with unpalatable choices such as foregoing a mission, altering the concept of operations as to how to fight a war, or being forced to take other difficult steps.

But should the Navy possess DD(X)s in sufficient number, then "a ship with this capability would be useful," he said.

Two Shipyards

Buzby also endorsed the rationale that Congress decided upon in mandating that DD(X)s will be built in two shipyards, widely separated geographically. General Dynamics Corp. unit Bath Iron Works shipyards is in Maine, while Northrop Grumman Corp. unit Ship Systems has yards in Louisiana and Mississippi.

When Hurricane Katrina caused substantial damage to Ship Systems yards, the storm caused no major damage to Bath Iron Works.

"Certainly strategically there is sense in not having one shipyard" be the only one capable of building surface combatants, he said.

The current plan to build DD(X)s at a pace of merely one per year might entail some extra costs, perhaps $300 million per ship, to split the work between General Dynamics and Northrop Grumman, it has been estimated. Building all DD(X)s at a single yard might yield efficiencies and volume savings, according to this view.

And that argument can be made, Buzby said, noting that one might choose to have all the work performed by just one contractor to obtain more efficiencies and cost reductions.

But with the threat of storms, or terrorist attacks, or some debilitating sicknesses that might strike across a given region, "that's probably strategically wise not to limit yourself" to one yard, he said.

And the savings of using just one yard might be overstated.

For example, Bath Iron and Ship Systems, while separated by more than 1,000 miles, easily can exchange computerized blueprints for the DD(X), so that in essence it is more akin to a ship being designed in a single yard.

The key, he concluded, is to move the DD(X) program forward in a manner that spends tax dollars wisely and well, while providing capabilities required to counter enemy threats and meeting needs of warfighters, and at the same time meeting mandates of Congress.

The Navy must "come up with the most cost-effective and congressionally approved" means of providing all that, a plan that yields best value for the military and taxpayers, he said.

 

[longeyes]

While he declined to respond to a question specifically citing the threat of China and its 700-plus radar-guided missiles aimed at waters near Taiwan, an island the Navy might have to defend from a Chinese invasion, he did say the DD(X) would be vital to meet the sort of threat posed by a near-peer competitor nation.

We're going to replay the Battle of Midway with the Chinese?

I don't think so.

 

[Manedwolf]

It's also not at all heavily armored, and is almost a "wet deck"...it's very low to the water, I have to wonder how it'd fare against a serious storm or a rogue wave.

The lack of armor makes me wonder about how it'd fare against a group of suicide bomb jihadists in a raft.

Personally, I think they ought to develop railguns, refit the old Iowa-class battlewagons for nuclear power, and take them out again with railgun turrets and more cruise missle and drone launchers.
Rafts could bang and blow up all day against the side of those, with the torpedo banding and thick, thick armor they have.

And we already have stealthy ships, you know. They're called "attack submarines."

 

[WT]

Aarrrggghhhhh!!!! Gag, sputter ............

The Admiral's Full Employment Act. More waste of taxpayer's money ......

$7.5 billion is peanuts. The DoD spends more than that each week.

In business R&D is an expense cost, written off in the year incurred. Maybe the admiral should take a cost accounting class and learn the meaning of 'sunk costs'. Hint: it doesn't have a nautical meaning.

That reverse raked bow may have been useful on a pre-WWI 'ram bow' battleship but it only makes a modern ship more 'sinkable'.

Why fight for Taiwan? Sell the dang island to the Chinese like Britain did Hong Kong. No loss for the US.

Invisible to radar? Maybe. Is it invisible to Chinese spy satellites (using American technology) passing overhead? Today any civilian can track a surface ship at sea using the www.

The US will go broke with this wasteful spending. The next time I see a USN admiral I will thank him for helping to destroy our economy.

 

[Preacherman]

I think that the fundamental problem any Navy faces today is that the threat environment has changed quite radically, while the tasks a Navy must perform have not changed - command of the sea, protection of merchant shipping, anti-threat operations above, on and below the surface of the sea, etc.

Submarine operations are no longer limited to line-of-sight torpedo attacks, but can encompass missile launches from hundreds of miles away, the laying of "smart" mines that can target specific ships or classes of ships while leaving others alone, co-operation with other submarines, surface ships and aircraft in co-ordinated attacks, etc.

Surface threats are no longer confined to opposing warships. With today's missiles, an innocent-seeming merchant ship can have container-loads of these missiles ready to launch from hundreds of miles away. Land-based missiles can target warships at a similar distance. Warships themselves are much more capable of defeating missile attacks, but their defences can be swamped by massive attacks by scores or hundreds of missiles that will exhaust defensive missile supplies and then overrun the now-defenceless targets. Missiles are now incorporating "stealth" technology, so that they're much harder to track and target.

Air threats are also a much more potent factor. Stand-off missiles mean that the attacking aircraft don't have to approach closer than a few hundred miles to the target ships, which negates much of the "air umbrella" defence that carriers have typically provided. "Stealth" aircraft and missiles may not be detected until it's too late to stop or avoid their attack. Speeds of engagement have increased, too: there are no longer "dogfight" speeds of a few hundred miles an hour to contend with, but long-range missile engagements where the opposing aircraft may never see each other, and both sides may engage and disengage at supersonic speeds.

Given this threat mix, it's obvious that any Navy would want a technologically sophisticated, relatively "stealthy", heavily-armed warship to deal with this environment. Unfortunately, to get this requires a massive capital expenditure, and equally massive routine updates to weapons, software, etc. to ensure that the ship stays capable of handling the developing threat environment. This, in turn, means that a warship that is too small simply won't be able to physically carry the volume of weapons, electronics, etc. required to fulfill all these missions.

That's one reason why the Littoral Combat Ship, or LCS, is being designed on a modular basis. It'll be a very small warship (smaller in tonnage terms than the current Oliver Hazard Perry-class frigates), and will have its mission equipment in the form of removable modules. If it's to perform a minesweeping or coastal defence role, the appropriate module will be installed. If its next job is as an ocean convoy escort, or an air defence ship for a task force, the previous module will be removed and the appropriate one plugged in. In this way, the "modules" are kept up-to-date to face the appropriate threat(s) to each mission, and all the ship has to do is to provide the interface to computer, radar, navigation, etc. needed by the weapons. If a module proves hopelessly out-of-date to face a particular threat, a new module can be designed and built, and plugged in instead.

So, the DD(X) tries to achieve a broad combat capability by building as many functions as possible into a given hull. Needless to say, this is a very expensive proposition. The LCS tries to optimise the ship for any one particular mission by installing the appropriate module before combat. The cost per ship is relatively low, although a particular module might be quite expensive. Of course, if the LCS happens to be caught short (for example, if it comes under massive missile attack while configured for minesweeping rather than air defence), it's SOL right there. The DD(X) would be able to defend itself while continuing with its primary mission.

As to whether the expense of such multi-role warships is justified, I guess we have to leave this to the analysts who decide on how to counter the dangers posed to naval ships by the current threat environment. I'm hardly the world's greatest expert in this field, so I defer to those who know more about it. I do worry about the incredible costs involved (the next-generation aircraft-carrier is likely to cost between $10 and $15 BILLION in current dollars!!! ), particularly when one good missile strike can sink all those ships, and all that money. However, if we didn't have them, would we be able to safeguard all those assets (trade, coastline, allies, etc.) that we currently defend with our Navy? It's a long-standing debate, and I guess we'll never come to a generally acceptable conclusion.

 

[Lucky]

We're going to replay the Battle of Midway with the Chinese?

I don't think so.

I think it's about force-parity and stuff like that. Sort of seems like you NEED to be strong, no matter what 'enlightened' ideologies say. You NEED to be strong, in this world. If you are viewed as weak all your diplomacy, all your words will be heard through the filter of being said from a position of weakness.

In a theory, weakness could lead to more hot conflicts, as weak parties try to compensate for materiel inferiority with their resolution and will. A strong party can afford to be consistently magnanimous, as long as everyone knows he's got a big stick.

Believe me - whether you are strong or weak, this IS the real world, and nations should take nothing for granted. My country is very weak, so weak that other countries smell our blood in the water. We're on the brink of losing control of our arctic waters, and even land masses are facing irridentism, because we stopped protecting them.


BTW if your ships have that 35mm Millenium gun, then I don't like the chances of the first suicide-raft that comes towards you. Sounds liks an MG42 it fires so fast, and the shells airburst in front of the target.

 

[Manedwolf]

So, the DD(X) tries to achieve a broad combat capability by building as many functions as possible into a given hull. Needless to say, this is a very expensive proposition. The LCS tries to optimise the ship for any one particular mission by installing the appropriate module before combat. The cost per ship is relatively low, although a particular module might be quite expensive. Of course, if the LCS happens to be caught short (for example, if it comes under massive missile attack while configured for minesweeping rather than air defence), it's SOL right there. The DD(X) would be able to defend itself while continuing with its primary mission.

So they install an all-new module before combat. Thus changing controls, functions, and perhaps the layout of areas of the ship?

I thought one of the strengths of the Navy was training that drilled and drilled and drilled crewmembers until they could find their battle stations and do their tasks in darkness and smoke and whatever?

If you switch things around before every mission....doesn't that sort of kill that strength?

And I still think subs are the way to go. Attack subs can go shallow, and, obviously, can't be seen by spy satellites unless they surface. They're immune to Iranian Exocets, if that becomes an issue, likewise Chinese Silkworms.

One of the newly refitted big missile boats has not only SEAL deployment tubes, but a big "hangar bay" just aft of the bow that drones and vehicles can be launched out of while submerged, then return and garage again. So it never needs to surface in enemy territory at all. We have plenty of missile boats to convert, yet. They're huge, lots of room.

Why have something on the surface at all, when you can stay beneath it and deploy assets at will, always with the element of surprise? You get it all, invisibility to satellites, nuclear powerplant means no vulnerable support vessels, enemy doesn't know the size of your force, immune to antiship missiles, ability to launch cruise missiles in quantity, deliver SEALs or any other needed manpower on the spot... plus you get plausible deniability if you need to sink something via a "mishap"...what warship? No warship = no public international incident.

 

[bowfin]

We are constantly upgrading everything for the U.S. Navy...on paper. We just never get around to cutting metal, because something newer and better is coming out next year. We never build next year's design, either, nothing really is new and improved...except on paper.

That is why the Navy has to refuel with F-18E Super Hornets, because we have no A-6 airframes to build KA-6Ds. That is why we have to take Tomcats and make them into "Bomb Bats", because we never got around to building a replacement for the A-6Es. When the F-14D Tomcats wear out because we cut THAT order to the bone, we won't have long range 1,500 mph interceptors with 120 mile range AAMs, we will have short range 1,300 mph interceptors with 30 mile range AAMs to show after almost 40 years of plotting an planning (1971 vs. 2006). What is going to replace the S-3 Viking? Similarly, the Marines are using 28 year old CH-46 helicopters as their wait for the Osprey goes into its second decade.

I say build the DD(X). The Falkland Islands combat should deter anyone from ever thinking about sending little ships to far off places.

 

[Boats]

The Navy is expensive because it is worth it.

Yes, at times the admirals are shortsighted, but sometimes, when they are in fact accurately seeing the horizon of the future, it is the lawmakers who balk.

Most of the world is capable of being attacked from the sea, be it by shipborne aircraft, missile, or Marines.

Submarines are great. In fact, they are probably the most versatile "ships" in the Navy and they feature extremely long and useful lifespans.

However, submarines provide little in the way of showing the flag. It is human nature to discount an unseen threat and to dwell on ships that can be seen headed towards one's locale via news reports and satellites. Submarines can deny the sea to the enemy, but they cannot really dominate it without firing upon surface ships. Surface ships can dominate an area by visibly occupying it rather like "boots on the ground" as opposed to bombing.

I don't like it when America has to beg some tinpot for basing rights so that we can project the power necessary to secure our national interests. Having an aircraft carrier or six in the region means the ability for the President to say to a potential enemy, "We're less than an hour away from smashing your infrastructure, you SOB." No significant lead time like bombing from an AFB in the US Midwest either.

Does that proximity to the action make carriers vulnerable? Carriers have always been vulnerable. This is why they travel with bodyguards and every sailor had better know his or her damage control tasks. Subs cannot adequately project power, they can only provide the promise of a threat through stealth. Subs cannot adequately protect a carrier. Would losing a surface ship be expensive? Losing large portions of a CAG? Yep, but they have been lost before.

Believe it or not, the USN is a fighting force. Guns, missles, torpedoes and bombs have, at one time or another, given we fighting sailors cause for concern, but we will sail into harms way every time we are called upon and we will defang the enemy. Nowhere to run and nowhere to hide is the essence of naval combat and is a sword that cuts both ways, not something the Chinese will be able to employ singlehandedly via a load of missiles, less capable subs, and some aircraft combined with a bunch of Wal-Mart destroyers and operating with yesteryear's naval doctrine.

Whether the DDX and CGX are the right ships at the right time is a debate worth having, but doing nothing, or implying that the surface Navy is obsolete just because the current crisis involves glorified camel jockeys, is a myopic fighting of the last war, not preparing for the continued relevance of the United States deep into this century and beyond.

The United States Navy guarantees the free flow of commerce on the high seas because it is the only force capable of doing so. Modern life was impossible in 1940, let alone today, absent unmolested commercial shipping. To throw away our role as the only serious master of the majority of the planet's surface in exchange for the economic fear and uncertainty less reliable guarantors would bring with their ascendance would be catastrophically stupid.

 

[Lupinus]

I fail to see the use/need of such a small destroyer personally.

 

[Maxwell]

Big ships cost big money. More fuel, more men, and more iron to paint.
With modern weapon systems, the average ship wouldnt last as long in an encounter anyway. So you build 5 ships of similar capabilty and spend the same on upkeep for one older ship.

I dont really agree with the stealth concept, a navy is to be seen and feared. Making them less visible when your going for tonnage and shock value seems wrong.
I suppose since its worked for the airforce then everyone wants in on the action, but I dont think its worth the trouble.

If you want an invisible navy, build more subs.

 

[River Wraith]

I think it's about force-parity and stuff like that. Sort of seems like you NEED to be strong, no matter what 'enlightened' ideologies say. You NEED to be strong, in this world. If you are viewed as weak all your diplomacy, all your words will be heard through the filter of being said from a position of weakness.

In a theory, weakness could lead to more hot conflicts, as weak parties try to compensate for materiel inferiority with their resolution and will. A strong party can afford to be consistently magnanimous, as long as everyone knows he's got a big stick.

Believe me - whether you are strong or weak, this IS the real world, and nations should take nothing for granted. My country is very weak, so weak that other countries smell our blood in the water. We're on the brink of losing control of our arctic waters, and even land masses are facing irridentism, because we stopped protecting them.


BTW if your ships have that 35mm Millenium gun, then I don't like the chances of the first suicide-raft that comes towards you. Sounds liks an MG42 it fires so fast, and the shells airburst in front of the target.

So who are you losing these things to? The Russians?

 

[Preacherman]

So they install an all-new module before combat. Thus changing controls, functions, and perhaps the layout of areas of the ship?

I thought one of the strengths of the Navy was training that drilled and drilled and drilled crewmembers until they could find their battle stations and do their tasks in darkness and smoke and whatever?

If you switch things around before every mission....doesn't that sort of kill that strength?

Manedwolf, I don't think it's quite like that. If I understand correctly what I've been reading, the basic structure of the LCS, the layout of its CIC, etc. will be standard. The computer terminals, wiring, etc. will remain the same for all missions. However, the weapons and equipment controlled by those terminals and wiring will change according to the mission, and the computer software will be re-loaded to reflect the changes in mission, weapons, etc.

AFAIK, the "modules" will be large blocks of ironmongery that will simply be lifted into place and bolted down. Electrical connections will be plugged in, power will be switched on, the appropriate software loaded into the ship's computers, and that "module" will function as if it were an integral part of the ship. When a new module is required, the old one is removed, the new one attached, new software loaded, and things go on as before.

I imagine a module will incorporate things like a missile launch system, or sonar pods, or whatever. I think that one will attach forward, and one aft, so that equipment can be deployed appropriately whatever the mission. For example, a forward "module" might incorporate a vertical-launch missile system, or VLMS. For the surface defence configuration, this could house a smaller number of large anti-shipping missiles. For the anti-submarine role, it could house rocket-launched torpedoes. For air defence, it might mount a large number of shorter-range anti-aircraft missiles. For land attack, it might mount a few Tomahawks or other missiles. For a multi-role mission, it might house a few missiles of each type, to do all these jobs at once, or as required. All one would do is load the appropriate software to control the missiles in use for that particular mission. The rear module might incorporate a helicopter handling facility, or another VLMS system, or towed-array sonar capabilities, or minesweeping gear, or something like that.

(Of course, I'm speaking about information that I've gathered at third hand, so I might not be accurate here - does anyone else have better information?)

 

[Lucky]

Here's the deal, the arctic is big, very big. And now it turns out it's probably valuable, very valuable. And want to know what we do to keep it? We fly an airplane over, twice a year, called Aurora iirc. Used to fly over at least once a month, before the cutbacks. I kid you not. There are also Rangers, volunteer militia of residents, but they are not a fighting force, simply symbolic. Symbolic as in how much the Rangers are paid - bubkiss. It's all a joke.

Denmark started planting flags on an Island they figure they ought to have, something you don't do unless you know the island is 'controlled' by a prostrate state. If Denmark can do it, then any other country in the region could find grounds to make claims as well. And it would be ridiculously easy to perform fait-accomplis, simply occupy some islands and then negotiate which ones to give back. Dept. Nat. Defence really does try, lord they try, but they can't pull money out of thin air. Our last gov't spend half a billion dollars to NOT buy new helicopters. Figure that one out and you understand the entire situation.

You laugh now, but if some people down your side get their way some day you could be spening more money on 'culture subsidies' than your military too.

 

[GEM]

Didn't the A-6 replacement, the A-12 tank in a giant scandal?

All militaries want the highest tech - that's way the AF continually tried to ditch the A-10 for fighters to fight a nonexistant 4th generation fighter from somewhere.

Personally, the biggest issue is to bring back the 1911 for a handgun.

Then, we can bring back the P-51 and the Missouri class.

 

[longeyes]

I think it's about force-parity and stuff like that. Sort of seems like you NEED to be strong, no matter what 'enlightened' ideologies say. You NEED to be strong, in this world. If you are viewed as weak all your diplomacy, all your words will be heard through the filter of being said from a position of weakness.

I agree with that concept but have a hard time envisioning anything resembling a "traditional" sea battle with the Chinese, given their advanced modern weapons. As others have well said the emphasis should be on stealth and mobility.

 

[roo_ster]

And I still think subs are the way to go...You get it all, invisibility to satellites, nuclear powerplant means no vulnerable support vessels, enemy doesn't know the size of your force, immune to antiship missiles, ability to launch cruise missiles in quantity, deliver SEALs or any other needed manpower on the spot... plus you get plausible deniability if you need to sink something via a "mishap"...what warship? No warship = no public international incident.

(emphasis by jfruser)
You speak correctly when you state the sub's capabilites as they are many & varied. I think you make a serious mistake when you say, "You get it all." That is just plain incorrect, as all designs are compromises.

For (many) examples, look to the auto industry. The Corvette is considered by many to be the height of auto design. But, how many sheets of 4'x8' can it haul home from Lowe's? Can it tow a 5th wheel trailer? Or do something so pedestian as haul four adults in comfort?

In the case of subs, there are serious & unforgiving design tradeoffs to be made if you want it to be able to go below the surface. Cost, for one. If you design two ships with identical offensive capability and one is also capable of submersion, that ship will cost much more. Also, does the sub have a gun that can be used to pound the shoreline? How many million dollar missiles would you need to expend to get equivalent effects from two turret mounted guns? Just how is the sub to perform an anti-aircraft role in support of an aircraft carrier from below the surface? What is the deterrent value of something the enemy can not see?

 

[pete f]

I read a proposal to take a SSBN and convert it to a submersible destroyer if you will. surface arms, just like the old days, VLMS for both anti air and anti surface targets. crew quarters for marines or seals. deployable small boats for surface work. submerge and disappear, surface, have enough deterent to command ships to stop and be searched or siezed, then deploy the small boats and submerge and depart the area. the author was a pretty smart guy, there was even talk of enough space to handle IIRC three harriers. or one blackhawk.

Stealth on a ship is important because no one stands watch anymore. I have spent some time offshore on blue water sail boats nothing is spookier than glassing a 1000 foot container boat moving at 26 knots with no one at all on the bridge, sailing between LA and Hawaii a few years ago we had one come within 300 yard of us and we never saw a soul on board. and we would have been hard to miss as we were sailing on a 73 boat with a 90 foot tall mast with a dayglo green genoker flying.

I am sure they had just turned the gain on the radar up and nothing less than a 500 footer would trip their squawker.

The new breed of ship is also going to need the fewest of most expensive resource, people. All ready newer ships are going to see with far fewer people than ever before. turbines and nukes need far fewer people to run and maintain. new Electronics suites can reduce man power needs to half what older systems need for CIC spaces. With VLMS, and automated gun ssytems, one guy can replace the many needed to run a conventional turret or gun tub. remember the old pics of even vietnam era ships with a human chain of ammo bearers for the smaller guns. how many guys fit in a CIWS? none. I read in one story about he Navy considering a new ship that would need less than 80 people compared with the 350 needed on the ship type they were replacing.

 

[LoneStranger]

Sixty years ago, just after the end of WWII, the Air Farce was pushing for an all bomber nothing else, Navy ship or Army grunt, needed defense force. Numerous very highly schooled types pointed out that "you only need to drop one nuclear weapon" and so there was no need for the other services.

Life moved on and a number of non-nuclear situations demostrated that the Air Farce was exceptionally wrong.

When building ships you can wind up with exceptionally long lead times and this was true even before 1900. With the pace of technology a lot of what you can concieve of today will be very obsolete tomorrow. This makes planning to build a ship today especially hard. Remember that most of the hardware on a ship cannot be picked up at the local building supply or hardware store.

Remember when someone talks about our building of "Liberty Ships" you are talking about a design that was approaching obsolecence at the start of WWII.