What did I tell ya.... DDG-1000 cancled, again

[Mike D]

Well, seems the Navy has lost another over budget, over promised and overblown program(s). Seems the DDG-1000 program will end with 2 hulls with some discussion over a possible third hull and the knock on effect is the end of the CG(X) program.

Seems Dennis and others were right, they are going to buy Burke hulls and go for incremental improvements.

The DDG-1000 program went from 24 to 16 to 10 to 8 then 7 and now 3 hulls. The F-22 was 648 then 422, then 394 then 275 and now 178 aircraft. Do I see a pattern?

[Warship NWS]

I never saw the need for the DDX or CGX programs to start with.. our naval platforms are leaps above anything else and noone can afford to build the same numbers and qualitive designs. We need FFGs.. not more missile capital ships. Maybe 2-3 more CVNs.

Im cool with the 178 F-22s.. that is enough to make any possible opponent think twice about trying to do air combat with us. 2 squadrons could ground most air forces alone on the mission kill fear factor concept. At least with 178 we have enough to take on any immediate threat, possibly several at one time - and we can build more if needed. So long as we keep the F-15s, F/A-18s, and F-16s up to par we should be fine.

[ksf1973]

Yeah, but those are quite old now (F-15's especially are falling down too often), and with the lead times for aircraft design stretching into the decades, there has to be continuous development process. I can guarantee you, the bad guys aren't standing still.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Well, seems the Navy has lost another over budget, over promised and overblown program(s). Seems the DDG-1000 program will end with 2 hulls with some discussion over a possible third hull and the knock on effect is the end of the CG(X) program.

Seems Dennis and others were right, they are going to buy Burke hulls and go for incremental improvements.

The DDG-1000 program went from 24 to 16 to 10 to 8 then 7 and now 3 hulls. The F-22 was 648 then 422, then 394 then 275 and now 178 aircraft. Do I see a pattern?

Mike:

That tracks pretty much with what I've been reading on the ship. I think the costs just shot out of sight. The two ships will probably end up as technology demonstrators sort of like the Seawolf attack subs were. The Navy will hopefully use the experience to build more affordable ships with some of the features of the DDG class. I know that former SecDef Rumsfeld was more in favor of a frigate or better yet Corvette style warship.

[Ed Rotondaro]

I never saw the need for the DDX or CGX programs to start with.. our naval platforms are leaps above anything else and noone can afford to build the same numbers and qualitive designs. We need FFGs.. not more missile capital ships. Maybe 2-3 more CVNs.

Im cool with the 178 F-22s.. that is enough to make any possible opponent think twice about trying to do air combat with us. 2 squadrons could ground most air forces alone on the mission kill fear factor concept. At least with 178 we have enough to take on any immediate threat, possibly several at one time - and we can build more if needed. So long as we keep the F-15s, F/A-18s, and F-16s up to par we should be fine.

Chris:

I still wouldn't mind at least 275 Raptors. The older birds are getting a little long in the tooth so it wouldn't hurt to have additional F-22s around when some of the F-15s need to be retired. I wonder if the DOD is figuring on the F-35 to make up some of the difference, that plus they're probably worried about how much those planes are going to cost.

[Mike D]

Kind of tangent to the post topic but I bet the LCS program will end up in the rubbish heap of history too. Great idea but it was over sold, over budget and they they wanted a speed boat the size of a fig and that fit everybody's dream world requirements.

Why not just buy some Visby and/or Flyvefisken hulls and work up from there. Why do we have to reinvent the wheel every darn time then end up with nothing but a big bill.

[Scott Chisholm]

... We need FFGs...


With 5-inch guns! :D

The problem with shipbuilding programs is that failure to maintain some measure of new construction leads to the loss of the industrial base. If too many contractors go out of (or leave) the business, then we lose the competition and costs go up.

Also, when you stretch the construction of a class out over decades through incremental upgrades, etc, you effectively end up with multiple single/few ship classes, as with the CVNs. For instance, CVNs 68-70 are fairly similar; 71 was a transition platform; 72-75 are effectively a different class (Jane's or Combat Fleets actually referred to them as the "ABRAHAM LINCOLN" class in one publication); 76 is another transition platform; and 77 yet a third transition.

Each class has its own logistics and training chain, which increases overall cost.

Why CG(X)/DDG(X)? Quite simply, the USN has to plan on battling the most likely "major" adversary. Any other route is a recipe for getting our fantails kicked.

So, who is the most likely credible naval threat? China? If so, that fight will be in their back yard - and against their air and subsurface assets. That's going to require "G" ships (and frigates!! :D), and USS BUNKER HILL (the first VLS Gucci Cruiser) is older than many of the sailors serving in her.

The DDGs are good, but they are not cruisers, and do not have the same punch.

While I am wholeheartedly in favor of developing an "expendable" FFG, I am sorry to hear the CG(X) program being scrapped, or at least shelved. :(

[Scott Chisholm]

Kind of tangent to the post topic but I bet the LCS program will end up in the rubbish heap of history too. Great idea but it was over sold, over budget and they they wanted a speed boat the size of a fig and that fit everybody's dream world requirements.

Why not just buy some Visby and/or Flyvefisken hulls and work up from there. Why do we have to reinvent the wheel every darn time then end up with nothing but a big bill.

Mike,

I'm not a fan of LCS, but I was involved with MIW Mission Module testing with HSV 2 SWIFT. That ship was a 98m wave-piercing catamaran we leased from INCAT/Bollinger - esentially a militarized auto ferry.

From a MIW standpoint, the concept was pretty good. But, for all the reasons I've exhausted in other threads/posts, I feel the concept is fatally (fiscally) flawed. I personally think you'll see INDEPENDENCE and FREEDOM and no others

[old_pop2000]

Kind of tangent to the post topic but I bet the LCS program will end up in the rubbish heap of history too. Great idea but it was over sold, over budget and they they wanted a speed boat the size of a fig and that fit everybody's dream world requirements.

Why not just buy some Visby and/or Flyvefisken hulls and work up from there. Why do we have to reinvent the wheel every darn time then end up with nothing but a big bill.

According to the Naval Institute's Proceedings article dtd January 2008, the Navy attempted to renegotiate with Lockheed-Martin to a fixed price contract, but failed and the contract was terminated for LC-3. The procedure was attempted for GD and it failed for LC-4. The Navy is still moving ahead with the LC program. The problem with the program is the Navy's constant changing of the design after contracts are signed. The SECNAV, Donald Winter wants fixed price contracts. He stated: "We are encouraged by the products we are seeing in the LCS program, but are disappointed in the cost and schedule overruns. Our objective is to build 55 ships in a timely and cost effective manner. "

The Navy will conduct operational assessments on both sea frames in 2008 to determine what capabilities they want and which configuration will be deemed suitable. The decision as to who gets to compete for the new LCS contract will be decided after the assessments have been completed. The delays will push the 55 ship LCS program out by two years, to FY18.

One interesting comment by Admiral Roughead, CNO, is "We have to put ourselves on an appetite suppressor that keeps the Navy from seizing on every good idea. " We can't afford to do that.

Source: "Is the 313-Ship Fleet Realistic?" by Commander Otto Kreisher, USNR( retired) from the January 2008 Proceedings Magazine.

There is an online version for members only. Sorry.

[Mike D]

Mike,

I'm not a fan of LCS, but I was involved with MIW Mission Module testing with HSV 2 SWIFT. That ship was a 98m wave-piercing catamaran we leased from INCAT/Bollinger - esentially a militarized auto ferry.


What ever happened to the HSV program, everything I read was glowing and the cost seemed right. I think the builder even offered the navy a lease on ships so they wouldn't have to do an outright build-buy.

[old_pop2000]

Some more snippets from the Proceedings article on the 313 Ship Fleet:


Report language put in the bill by the two defense appropriations subcommittees endorsed the capabilities sought for LCS and noted the importance of those 55 ships to increasing the Fleet. "If the (Navy) Secretary cannot maintain affordability in this vital program, the 313-ship Fleet cannot be realized. The committee believes it is imperative that the Navy pursue all reasonable means to control costs in the LCS program," the report said.

In the report, Congress basically endorsed the Navy's current plan for LCS, telling it to conduct the operational assessment with the two prototypes under construction, leading to "a down-select decision in late fiscal year 2008." Congress also stated its view that the Navy should conduct "a full and open competition" for future LCSs and ordered the Navy to use "fixed-priced incentive contracting" for them.

Congressional support for what now is the Navy's plan for the LCS is reassuring, O'Rourke said. But whether the Navy and industry can keep the LCS program within the cost limits set by Congress and whether the Navy will get the funding it needs in future years to buy all 55 of the revolutionary ships remains in doubt

[Warship NWS]

Well my simple thought for an FFG.. a cut down version of our DDGs.. I mean, that is what other countries are already doing. A VLS for ESSM, a 57mm gun, some Penquins or Harpoons, a RIM-116a, and a Helo.

[old_pop2000]

What ever happened to the HSV program, everything I read was glowing and the cost seemed right. I think the builder even offered the navy a lease on ships so they wouldn't have to do an outright build-buy.

FYI

http://www.deagel.com/Auxiliary-Vessels/JHSV_a000058001.aspx

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/USA-Charters-HSV-Swift-for-1-5-Years-04875/

[Warship NWS]

Chris:

I still wouldn't mind at least 275 Raptors. The older birds are getting a little long in the tooth so it wouldn't hurt to have additional F-22s around when some of the F-15s need to be retired. I wonder if the DOD is figuring on the F-35 to make up some of the difference, that plus they're probably worried about how much those planes are going to cost.

It all depends on feasibility, life cycles of the other aircraft, maintenance, and costs. So long as we can make more if needed then I would not worry too much yet. At least we know we have them if we need them and each F-22 is IMHO worth at least 4+ F-15s in terms of fear factor. Presently we have 730 active F-15s so we are in good shape for now.

[old_pop2000]

It all depends on feasibility, life cycles of the other aircraft, maintenance, and costs. So long as we can make more if needed then I would not worry too much yet. At least we know we have them if we need them and each F-22 is IMHO worth at least 4+ F-15s in terms of fear factor. Presently we have 730 active F-15s so we are in good shape for now.

I don't want to rain on anyones parade, but in November,2007, an F-15 broke apart in the air but the pilot survived. Eight more F-15's were found to have stress cracks in the longerons in the fuselage. They probably can be fixed, but that brings up the aging factor in many of the older F-15's. 442 of the A-D models were grounded. These were the models used in the CONUS as interceptors.

So, the question then becomes, how long and at what cost, will the fix take. Replacing longerons, supports for the fuselage, require complete disassembly and magnafluxing. Once the defective pieces are found, then replacement kits have to be inserted and then the plane reassembled. I would guess that this would ground that aircraft for minimum, 6 months to eight months, depending on availability of kits, time necessary to inspect all 442 aircraft, and send them to Ogden or McAir or both for the work. This is not just an engine overhaul. Remember, you have to test every aircraft in the lot of 442 first, determine which ones are the worst and which ones are the least affected, then devise a fix. These kinds of fixes take months to engineer and then test the fix to verify. You have to also decide, if the bird is repairable, cost effectively. You might lose 100 of those birds to AMARG. The others might take five years to move through depot repair, if you are lucky. All the while, those remaining F-15's are grounded. The remaining F-15's are E models, Strike Eagles. Remember also that the F-22 have their own structural problems and are being sent to Ogden for repairs.

Note also, that there are only 670 F-15's including the A-D models and F15E's. The A-D models were certified for 8,000 hours of flight time, the E's for 16,000 hours. Remember also, the E's have Fly by wire, which means the computer won't let the human in the cockpit overstress the airframe during combat. A-D's have no such anti-human controls.

T'anks:D

[Warship NWS]

Hi Dennis, I read about that.. another source stated that 60% of the fleet returned to service and the Es were not effected. So .. at best I figure we are at around 438 operational F-15s. Maybe this will be a nudge for more F-22.. who knows.

[old_pop2000]

Hi Dennis, I read about that.. another source stated that 60% of the fleet returned to service and the Es were not effected. So .. at best I figure we are at around 438 operational F-15s. Maybe this will be a nudge for more F-22.. who knows.

It has been my experience that if those 400 A-D models are now experiencing stress cracks, they are probably going to show up in the others very soon. Even if they tested those aircraft, there is nothing to say, that a good 10g turn would not overstress the airframe and the cracks will not appear on the other aircraft. The USAF has got initiate a retrofit program to extend the life of the A-D models out to 2020. Right now, the limit is being reached. The average airframe flight hours on the remaining C's and D's is 10,000 hours. That's 2000 hours over the limits, which were already extended from the original 4000 hours.

The justification for the F-22 was based on the original 8000 hr limit on the F-15C/D's, which has since been passed on almost all the aircraft. Keep in mind, the 1990's MSIP program did not address structural issues, but simply upgraded the avionics. Since 9/11 those models will average 1 to 4 hours of flight per day, especially over Washington D.C. not including scrambles due to unidentified intruders. Scrambles put a lot of stress on aircraft as they are quick reaction, high climb rate missions. You hot start the bird in the hanger, and taxi, and takeoff with Full AB and climb quickly to gain altitude advantage then acquire the vector to the bogey from NORAD on your attack scope until you arrive within your radar range. B'en there, done that, many times.

[Warship NWS]

All of the above is why I think they opted to push for the F-22/35 programs rather then do complete refits of the entire F-15 fleet. The next few years should prove interesting.. but if they intend to keep the F-15s around a bit longer they better spend the money to do it now.

[old_pop2000]

All of the above is why I think they opted to push for the F-22/35 programs rather then do complete refits of the entire F-15 fleet. The next few years should prove interesting.. but if they intend to keep the F-15s around a bit longer they better spend the money to do it now.


Yup, they don't have a lot of time. They had better get those problems with the F-22 fixed, because the standing patrols of F-15's over the CONUS is wearing them out. Ever wondered by the first F-22 squadron was stood up at Elmendorf in the Alaskan Air Command. I know why.;)

[Ed Rotondaro]

Kind of tangent to the post topic but I bet the LCS program will end up in the rubbish heap of history too. Great idea but it was over sold, over budget and they they wanted a speed boat the size of a fig and that fit everybody's dream world requirements.

Why not just buy some Visby and/or Flyvefisken hulls and work up from there. Why do we have to reinvent the wheel every darn time then end up with nothing but a big bill.

Mike:

I agree completely. The not invented here nonsense doesn't stand up anymore when you consider the decline in the US shipbuilding industry. Of course we must never underestimate the heavy hand of defense industry lobbyists in trying to steer contracts to US companies.

[Ed Rotondaro]

With 5-inch guns! :D

The problem with shipbuilding programs is that failure to maintain some measure of new construction leads to the loss of the industrial base. If too many contractors go out of (or leave) the business, then we lose the competition and costs go up.

Also, when you stretch the construction of a class out over decades through incremental upgrades, etc, you effectively end up with multiple single/few ship classes, as with the CVNs. For instance, CVNs 68-70 are fairly similar; 71 was a transition platform; 72-75 are effectively a different class (Jane's or Combat Fleets actually referred to them as the "ABRAHAM LINCOLN" class in one publication); 76 is another transition platform; and 77 yet a third transition.

Each class has its own logistics and training chain, which increases overall cost.

Why CG(X)/DDG(X)? Quite simply, the USN has to plan on battling the most likely "major" adversary. Any other route is a recipe for getting our fantails kicked.

So, who is the most likely credible naval threat? China? If so, that fight will be in their back yard - and against their air and subsurface assets. That's going to require "G" ships (and frigates!! :D), and USS BUNKER HILL (the first VLS Gucci Cruiser) is older than many of the sailors serving in her.

The DDGs are good, but they are not cruisers, and do not have the same punch.

While I am wholeheartedly in favor of developing an "expendable" FFG, I am sorry to hear the CG(X) program being scrapped, or at least shelved. :(

Scott:

Good points. I too thought that we needed the CG(X), but not necessarily nuclear powered or displacing over 20,000 tons as one specification would have required. One thing I do worry about with smaller warships like FFGs and corvettes is endurance. If we did have to fight China in their waters, how long can these smaller combatants stay in action? Where is the nearest friendly base? Taiwan? That would make them very vulnerable to attack.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Mike,

I'm not a fan of LCS, but I was involved with MIW Mission Module testing with HSV 2 SWIFT. That ship was a 98m wave-piercing catamaran we leased from INCAT/Bollinger - esentially a militarized auto ferry.

From a MIW standpoint, the concept was pretty good. But, for all the reasons I've exhausted in other threads/posts, I feel the concept is fatally (fiscally) flawed. I personally think you'll see INDEPENDENCE and FREEDOM and no others

Scott:

I believe you are correct on this topic.

[Scott Chisholm]

What ever happened to the HSV program, everything I read was glowing and the cost seemed right. I think the builder even offered the navy a lease on ships so they wouldn't have to do an outright build-buy.

Mike,

The HSV program was a test bed using wave-piercing catamarans leased from INCAT/Bollinger.

HSV-X1, a 96m vessel, was called "JOINT VENTURE". The US Army and the USN split the lease, with the USA operating the ship for a while, then the USN until the lease was up. I'm not sure what the focus of experimentation was with her.

HSV 2 SWIFT, a 98m vessel, was a joint USN/USMC experiment. The USMC wanted to use her for operational testing of their "Sea Connector" concept, while the USN was supposed to use her as a surrogate MIW command ship and MIW mission module experimentation platform. I was involved in the initial crew certification of the ship's crews, and had oversight of the UUV platoon that performed experimentation with mine hunting UUVs.

We accepted her in August 2003, and kept the lease until July 2008. Though she had two crews (one based in Ingleside, TX, and one based in Little Creek, VA), the ship was seldom in CONUS. At 40+ kts, she zipped all over the world doing contingency/disaster relief operations, squeezing in experimentation when she could. I think in 5 years she circled the world 3 times.... We kept her at sea due to the cost of the lease: $30k/day. :eek:

With the launching of the first LCS platforms, the USN terminated the HSV lease. I believe the USA is still leasing one or more for their own purposes.

I believe part of the reason the reason the USN did not consider purchasing HSVs for military use was the fact they were entirely made of aluminum and were not combat worthy. Granted, they were militarized auto ferrys, but the basic design would not have lended itself to being developed into a combat worthy craft without a significant drop in performance.

It's probably best that I stop there; first because I've exhausted the majority of my knowledge on that line of thought, and second because I'm not certain how much of what else I know is still classified. Not trying to be cute; just trying to keep my job.

[Ed Rotondaro]

FYI

http://www.deagel.com/Auxiliary-Vessels/JHSV_a000058001.aspx

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/USA-Charters-HSV-Swift-for-1-5-Years-04875/

Dennis:

I wonder how good of a seaboat they are?

[Ed Rotondaro]

It all depends on feasibility, life cycles of the other aircraft, maintenance, and costs. So long as we can make more if needed then I would not worry too much yet. At least we know we have them if we need them and each F-22 is IMHO worth at least 4+ F-15s in terms of fear factor. Presently we have 730 active F-15s so we are in good shape for now.

Chris:

As Scott has said with ships, if you shut down the line due to no orders, it's not easily re-started. Perhaps Dennis knows if this is also true in the aviation industry?

[Ed Rotondaro]

I don't want to rain on anyones parade, but in November,2007, an F-15 broke apart in the air but the pilot survived. Eight more F-15's were found to have stress cracks in the longerons in the fuselage. They probably can be fixed, but that brings up the aging factor in many of the older F-15's. 442 of the A-D models were grounded. These were the models used in the CONUS as interceptors.

So, the question then becomes, how long and at what cost, will the fix take. Replacing longerons, supports for the fuselage, require complete disassembly and magnafluxing. Once the defective pieces are found, then replacement kits have to be inserted and then the plane reassembled. I would guess that this would ground that aircraft for minimum, 6 months to eight months, depending on availability of kits, time necessary to inspect all 442 aircraft, and send them to Ogden or McAir or both for the work. This is not just an engine overhaul. Remember, you have to test every aircraft in the lot of 442 first, determine which ones are the worst and which ones are the least affected, then devise a fix. These kinds of fixes take months to engineer and then test the fix to verify. You have to also decide, if the bird is repairable, cost effectively. You might lose 100 of those birds to AMARG. The others might take five years to move through depot repair, if you are lucky. All the while, those remaining F-15's are grounded. The remaining F-15's are E models, Strike Eagles. Remember also that the F-22 have their own structural problems and are being sent to Ogden for repairs.

Note also, that there are only 670 F-15's including the A-D models and F15E's. The A-D models were certified for 8,000 hours of flight time, the E's for 16,000 hours. Remember also, the E's have Fly by wire, which means the computer won't let the human in the cockpit overstress the airframe during combat. A-D's have no such anti-human controls.

T'anks:D

Dennis:

That's exactly what I was afraid of, the aging F-15 fleet. God knows they have given great service, perhaps the best of any modern fighter, but time waits for no man.

[Scott Chisholm]

Scott:

Good points. I too thought that we needed the CG(X), but not necessarily nuclear powered or displacing over 20,000 tons as one specification would have required. One thing I do worry about with smaller warships like FFGs and corvettes is endurance. If we did have to fight China in their waters, how long can these smaller combatants stay in action? Where is the nearest friendly base? Taiwan? That would make them very vulnerable to attack.

Ed,

The answers to your questions can be best answered by reviewing what you can on the Navy's "Sea Basing" concept.

As for endurance, the only ship we have with meaningful endurance is the CVN. Even our Gucci Cruisers are addicts to the oilers. A CVN running flat out will suck a Gucci Cruiser's fuel tanks inside out in about 72 hours. An FFG's endurance would not be much worse.

[Ed Rotondaro]

The justification for the F-22 was based on the original 8000 hr limit on the F-15C/D's, which has since been passed on almost all the aircraft. Keep in mind, the 1990's MSIP program did not address structural issues, but simply upgraded the avionics. Since 9/11 those models will average 1 to 4 hours of flight per day, especially over Washington D.C. not including scrambles due to unidentified intruders. Scrambles put a lot of stress on aircraft as they are quick reaction, high climb rate missions. You hot start the bird in the hanger, and taxi, and takeoff with Full AB and climb quickly to gain altitude advantage then acquire the vector to the bogey from NORAD on your attack scope until you arrive within your radar range. B'en there, done that, many times.

Dennis:

Are you talking about being part of the hanger crew, or did you manage a few back seat hops?

[Ed Rotondaro]

Ed,

The answers to your questions can be best answered by reviewing what you can on the Navy's "Sea Basing" concept.

As for endurance, the only ship we have with meaningful endurance is the CVN. Even our Gucci Cruisers are addicts to the oilers. A CVN running flat out will suck a Gucci Cruiser's fuel tanks inside out in about 72 hours. An FFG's endurance would not be much worse.

Scott:

Thanks, I'll Google Sea Basing. I wasn't just thinking about fuel when discussing the smaller ships, I was also wondering about missiles and other ordnance. If this isn't a classified question, do you still retain whatever your final security clearance was in your new job? I would imagine you would have to.

[Scott Chisholm]

Dennis:

I wonder how good of a seaboat they are?

Ed,

INCAT/Bollinger rates the hulls based on their "MSI", which stands for "Motion Sickness Index". I can't make this stuff up!

Being a catamaran, they don't roll - they sort of bounce from side to side. They do, however, pitch up and down like a a big dog!

To limit the vertical motion - and MSI - they deploy a water wing, called a "T Foil" between the hulls. The foil extends about 10 feet into the water and serves to limit the up and down motion.

In sea state 1 to 3, it's hard to tell the difference between being moored or underway at 40 kts. In 10 ft seas, you get about 15 feet of vertical motion when doing 40 kts.... Been there, done that on HSV 2 during her sea trials. :(

Remember, a wave piercing catamaran is basically a 300 foot long jet ski. Wheeeeeeeee!!!!!

[JMS]

Ed,

In 10 ft seas, you get about 15 feet of vertical motion when doing 40 kts.... Been there, done that on HSV 2 during her sea trials. :(


I have read the same from the merchant mariners that use them in the Canaries, if the weather is good, they are sweet, but when the going gets rough, it gets VERY rough.

[Scott Chisholm]

Scott:

Thanks, I'll Google Sea Basing. I wasn't just thinking about fuel when discussing the smaller ships, I was also wondering about missiles and other ordnance. If this isn't a classified question, do you still retain whatever your final security clearance was in your new job? I would imagine you would have to.

Ed,

I'm actually sitting at the same desk I had on active duty, and, yes, I still have the same security clearance.

This link my prove informative:

http://www.nwdc.navy.mil/content/conops/SeaBasing.aspx

Basically, Sea Basing is the USN staking out an area of the ocean and setting up a mobile base. Blue water ocean, that is.

[Scott Chisholm]

I have read the same from the merchant mariners that use them in the Canaries, if the weather is good, they are sweet, but when the going gets rough, it gets VERY rough.

When SWIFT first arrived at Little Creek, they took a bunch of reporters our for a spin around Chesapeake Light...

...where she earned the nickname "Vomit Comet". :eek:

[Ed Rotondaro]

Ed,

INCAT/Bollinger rates the hulls based on their "MSI", which stands for "Motion Sickness Index". I can't make this stuff up!

Being a catamaran, they don't roll - they sort of bounce from side to side. They do, however, pitch up and down like a a big dog!

To limit the vertical motion - and MSI - they deploy a water wing, called a "T Foil" between the hulls. The foil extends about 10 feet into the water and serves to limit the up and down motion.

In sea state 1 to 3, it's hard to tell the difference between being moored or underway at 40 kts. In 10 ft seas, you get about 15 feet of vertical motion when doing 40 kts.... Been there, done that on HSV 2 during her sea trials. :(

Remember, a wave piercing catamaran is basically a 300 foot long jet ski. Wheeeeeeeee!!!!!

Scott:

I have to admit they look pretty cool, but that aluminum hull makes me leery of what would happen they ever hit by a sea skimming missile.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Ed,

I'm actually sitting at the same desk I had on active duty, and, yes, I still have the same security clearance.

This link my prove informative:

http://www.nwdc.navy.mil/content/conops/SeaBasing.aspx

Basically, Sea Basing is the USN staking out an area of the ocean and setting up a mobile base. Blue water ocean, that is.

Scott:

Thanks for the link. You must be as busy as me today.:D

[old_pop2000]

Dennis:

I wonder how good of a seaboat they are?


Cats are good seaboats in shallow waters, fast maneuverable, but can be fun in heavy seas. The designs up to this point have been for Littoral Zone operations, so they would be appropos. With the second hull, they can be relatively damage resistant. I believe the Chinese have built a Type 22 Houbei class missile boat using the SWATH design. This is a small waterplane, twin hull design which eliminates the poor seakeeping of regular cat hulls in high speed at high seas. The design reduces the volume of hull in sea's surface is the key. Its call a modified wave piercing hull. Cats also have broad decks, which is useful for mission requirements. Apparenly the bulk of the hull is located below the surface, where waves have no effect.

http://www.solarnavigator.net/s_w_a_t_h.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_Waterplane_Area_Twin_Hull - Due to my cooking class, I had to use wikipedia- this is a disclaimer.

http://www.swath.com/

[old_pop2000]

Dennis:

Are you talking about being part of the hanger crew, or did you manage a few back seat hops?


No, I was connected via NORAD to the Alaskan Air Command with our air defense division. We were all trained to understand what every other division did and how they operated. It was a sort of back up system, just in case. Plus, my experience around Navy aircraft, and the stress that they went through. The USAF interceptors up at Elmendorff really got a workout.

We used to scramble F-106's out of Hamilton, Fresno and other bases. It was a real stressful takeoff for fighters. Horn sounds, hanger door open, engines are started and the bird taxis, turns left and hits the AB and goes. Less than 5 minutes from notification to lift off, with a high climb and vector. The area leading out of the runway is called the military climb corridor. No other aircraft are allowed in that area, and trust me, you don't want to be a Cessna in that zone when one of them leaves the area. The bird climbs, receives the initial vector from NORAD, and continues to climb until above and behind. Sometimes, they will keep low and attempt a low stern approach, depends on the cloud base, time of day, possible bogey etc.

Sorry for the mixup, Ed.

[Lancer]

Hell, if the Navy is looking for superior, I would concentrate on semi-submersible vessels. Imagine with that kind of sneaky surprise tactic, they may also render anti-ship SSMs useless due to alot less of the vessel exposed.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Cats are good seaboats in shallow waters, fast maneuverable, but can be fun in heavy seas. The designs up to this point have been for Littoral Zone operations, so they would be appropos. With the second hull, they can be relatively damage resistant. I believe the Chinese have built a Type 22 Houbei class missile boat using the SWATH design. This is a small waterplane, twin hull design which eliminates the poor seakeeping of regular cat hulls in high speed at high seas. The design reduces the volume of hull in sea's surface is the key. Its call a modified wave piercing hull. Cats also have broad decks, which is useful for mission requirements. Apparenly the bulk of the hull is located below the surface, where waves have no effect.

http://www.solarnavigator.net/s_w_a_t_h.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_Waterplane_Area_Twin_Hull - Due to my cooking class, I had to use wikipedia- this is a disclaimer.

http://www.swath.com/

Dennis:

Interesting ships. They could be the wave of the future (no pun intended).

[Ed Rotondaro]

No, I was connected via NORAD to the Alaskan Air Command with our air defense division. We were all trained to understand what every other division did and how they operated. It was a sort of back up system, just in case. Plus, my experience around Navy aircraft, and the stress that they went through. The USAF interceptors up at Elmendorff really got a workout.

We used to scramble F-106's out of Hamilton, Fresno and other bases. It was a real stressful takeoff for fighters. Horn sounds, hanger door open, engines are started and the bird taxis, turns left and hits the AB and goes. Less than 5 minutes from notification to lift off, with a high climb and vector. The area leading out of the runway is called the military climb corridor. No other aircraft are allowed in that area, and trust me, you don't want to be a Cessna in that zone when one of them leaves the area. The bird climbs, receives the initial vector from NORAD, and continues to climb until above and behind. Sometimes, they will keep low and attempt a low stern approach, depends on the cloud base, time of day, possible bogey etc.

Sorry for the mixup, Ed.

Dennis:

Thanks for the insights into how we conducted and still conduct intercepts. Let me guess 23 hours of boredom per day and one hour of sheer hell if a bogey is detected.

[old_pop2000]

Dennis:

Thanks for the insights into how we conducted and still conduct intercepts. Let me guess 23 hours of boredom per day and one hour of sheer hell if a bogey is detected.

Sometimes the boredom lasted longer than just hours, sometimes days. Then all of a sudden, whammy. It gets interesting.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Sometimes the boredom lasted longer than just hours, sometimes days. Then all of a sudden, whammy. It gets interesting.

Well thanks for putting up with it and guarding the rest of us.

[old_pop2000]

Well thanks for putting up with it and guarding the rest of us.

No thanks is necessary, everyone, IMHO, should do some national service for his country and I am certain that you have done your equivalent service. I am certain that the four years made me a better person, so I look back on it with good memories.

[Ed Rotondaro]

No thanks is necessary, everyone, IMHO, should do some national service for his country and I am certain that you have done your equivalent service. I am certain that the four years made me a better person, so I look back on it with good memories.

Dennis:

I'll tell you what I would have liked to have done, work a stretch for Habitat for Humanity.

[old_pop2000]

Dennis:

I'll tell you what I would have liked to have done, work a stretch for Habitat for Humanity.

There is always time, after you retire. Life is not over at retirement, in fact, it is just starting. Leave that idea for something to do, after. I did my national service at the beginning of my life, some do it during their working career, some can wait until retirement. Who cares when it gets done, pick your time and place.

[Ed Rotondaro]

There is always time, after you retire. Life is not over at retirement, in fact, it is just starting. Leave that idea for something to do, after. I did my national service at the beginning of my life, some do it during their working career, some can wait until retirement. Who cares when it gets done, pick your time and place.

Dennis:

It's funny that should say that, because that was an idea of mine. Once my kids are at least able to drive themselves to their games I might have some free time on weekends to volunteer. My dad served in the USN at the tail end of WWII and again in Korea. After a 41 year career in government he retired and along with my mom started doing volunteer work with the local Catholic church as well as the Albany Police Athletic League. I think this keeps him busy and young. Right now though my kids have so many activities that I rarely have the kind of free time that I wish.

[Jittery]

Can you guys in America join the reserves then transfer to full time?

To explain, my view is similar that at some time you should do national service in your life time and here i am able to do (a fair chunk) the training part time over 6-18 months to fit in with work/school etc. They also arrange and pay your employer for the time off that you have from your job while your off doing the training. Then you can transfer straight across at the end to full time or go to the reserves. As it is this allows me to get a idea where i would like to go when i transfer across in around 11 months or so. (i broke my foot so i sort of delayed the training part thanks to a motorbike and a slippery hill :mad:)

Similar system at your end? Or is it a one or the other no middle road in your neck of the woods?

[john964]

Can you guys in America join the reserves then transfer to full time?

To explain, my view is similar that at some time you should do national service in your life time and here i am able to do (a fair chunk) the training part time over 6-18 months to fit in with work/school etc. They also arrange and pay your employer for the time off that you have from your job while your off doing the training. Then you can transfer straight across at the end to full time or go to the reserves. As it is this allows me to get a idea where i would like to go when i transfer across in around 11 months or so. (i broke my foot so i sort of delayed the training part thanks to a motorbike and a slippery hill :mad:)

Similar system at your end? Or is it a one or the other no middle road in your neck of the woods?Jitt, In the US the Army and the Air Force have 3 componets while the Navy and Marines have 2. The Army/AF componets are reguler active duty forces, then the reserves of the branches and finaly the army/air national gaurd. The army, air gaurd is a hybird formation part federal part state. In the NG/ANG the state govenor can activate the NG/ANG for duty with in the state for things like natural disasters and civil distubances they can be sent to other states for major disasters like hurricanes. But the NG/ANG can be federalized at any time by the federal government during a time of war or not. When the states activate the NG/ANG the states pay for it themselves and that can get expencive real quick IIRC to activate 1 infantry battalion cost somthing like a million dollars a day. As to tranfering from the NG/ANG or reserves to the active forces or vice versa? Yes you can do it. My brother tranfered from the Army reserves to active duty just before Sept 11 2001. IIRC his orders to report were a week afterwards. Also the reserves NG/ANG are used by the active duty forces to place little used units types like water pureificaton, civil affars and water transport.