Times-Union file photo
The USS Freedom Littoral combat ship (LCS 1) based in San Diego, CA, is in shown in port at Naval Station Mayport on November 12, 2009.
Posted on 06/20/2016 6:57:06 AM PDT by sukhoi-30mki
BATH, Maine — The Navy spent hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars to fulfill its need for speed with a new class of fast and agile warships capable of zipping along at highway speeds. It turns out speed is overrated.
The Navy has learned lessons from the light-and-speedy littoral combat ships: Upcoming ships will trade some speed in favor of more weapons and heavier armor.
Rear Adm. Peter Fanta, director of surface warfare, said the goal is to increase the offensive punch of all warships from the biggest to the smallest. For the littoral combat ship, that'll begin with the installation of over-the-horizon missiles this summer.
"Each ship that I now have — I have to make more lethal because I cannot build ships fast enough, or enough of them," Fanta told The Associated Press.
Two versions of the warships were sped into production to meet the Navy's goal of an affordable, fast ship to operate in shallow coastal — or littoral — waters.
The ships, which are capable of topping 50 mph, utilize steerable waterjets instead of propellers and rudders to operate in shallow water. The Navy plans to bring eight ships to Mayport Naval Station by 2020.
(Excerpt) Read more at jacksonville.com ...
Times-Union file photo
The USS Freedom Littoral combat ship (LCS 1) based in San Diego, CA, is in shown in port at Naval Station Mayport on November 12, 2009.
Right and Fisher thought speed was “armour” for his battlecruisers in the RN in WW1. That went well.
Yeah, the Hood came immediately to mind.
They need to install some more reliable generators. The ones they have keep breaking down.
Sounds like the Navy is finally awakening to Obama’s shrinking of vessels to nothing. Honestly, you’d think the Navy would know how to optimize fleet size, speed, armaments, and armor by now.
Changing budgets, missions and technology. Throw politicians into the mix.....
At Jutland, it didn’t help that the gun crews kept the ‘blast doors’ blocked open that were to be closed in between sending shells and powder from the magazine to the gun turret.
Didn't Admiral Scheer demonstrate this at Jutland?
True. But the Germans had better optics and had sacrificed some speed and some ballistic range for more armor around their magazines - and their ships didn’t blow up.
And meanwhile somewhere in Iran they are planning to build a statue of American sailors surrendering. Speed and firepower are useless without leadership that has the resolve and fortitude to stand up for what’s right.
As we’ve seen modern ships are extremely vulnerable to fire. Read “Last stand of the tin can sailors” and see how much punishment a WWII destroyer could take and still fight. Modern ships with aluminum super structures and such can’t survive a single 8” hit much less several. While speed is important we are talking about a few knots difference in the 30knot zone. In reality this is a snail’s pace in the face of modern guided weaponry.
A WWII battleship’s bridge armor would resist a conventional cruise or surface gun seeing that the largest guns are 5” for the most part. I’m not suggesting we build battleships but it might be wiser to sacrifice a knot or three for a superstructure that won’t melt like butter. The other thing not generally discussed is the vulnerability of the electronics. A mechanical fire control computer might have less capability but it won’t go offline at the first sneeze.
That’s “anti ship missile” not “cruise”.
However, if they hadn’t kept the ‘anti-flash’ doors closed, the amount of armor would have mean little for turret hits and near hits that happened to the British ships that send the ‘fireball’ directly into the magazines.
Fleet Admiral David Beatty: ""There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today."
Yup.
Battle cruiser HMS Invincible blowing up at Jutland. 
Battle cruiser HMS Indefatigable sinking at Jutland. 
Battle cruiser HMS Queen Mary blowing up at Jutland. 
WWII Italian navy also had that false concept. Think Cape Matapan
This practice was pretty much limited to the battle cruisers. The battleship gun crews followed Admiralty ordnance handling procedures very closely. Several of Jellicoe’s battleships took heavy pounding from the Germans and were not blown to bits by it.
They would be better off to build a new class of light/heavy cruisers with 32 knot+ speed, reactive and modern armor and heavy firepower. A couple of 6-8 inch gun triple gun turrets, CIWS, Tomahawk and upgraded for further standoff capability Harpoons. Make it capable of adapting to future weapons systems such as a possible rail gun/magnet gun or laser weapons system.
Or just build some more Arleigh Burke DD’s.
Correct you are. The battle cruisers lightened by skimping too much on the deck armor. It was plunging fire that got them.
Not really. Early interwar Italian cruisers were fast and lightly armoured, but that was a counter to French ship design. Specfically fast "super destroyers" with near cruiser sized guns. Now if "The Threat" is building fast unarmoured fauxcruisers, building fast real cruisers (if lightly armoured) is a reasonable counter.
And the Zaras lost at Mapatan were fast, but also the most heavily armoured of any nations's interwar cruisers (the Italians cheated), but against aircraft torpedoes, and battleship guns, neither speed or armour were effective
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.