Free Republic 2nd Quarter Fundraising Target: $88,000 Receipts & Pledges to-date: $24,778
28%  
Woo hoo!! And the first 28% is IN!! Thank you all very much!! God bless.

Posts on VetsCoR

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • Le'ts brain storm the next generation warship. Ideas?

    04/20/2017 3:46:54 AM PDT · 65 of 65
    schurmann to Redmen4ever

    “...the difference between a frigate during the age of sail, and a man of war (or, ship of the line), was more in its design, and as to how fast it was. Not really in how many guns it was rated. When confronted by a man of war, a frigate was to outrun it. ...”

    The number of guns mounted on any warship of 1800 was no less an aspect of its design than hull form, number of masts, sail square yardage, etc. And that frigate of 1800 (including a US “super frigate” built to Joshua Humphreys’ design) had no option except running away, if it was to avoid annihilation by a line of battle, or even one single ship-of-the-line. That’s why I included the words “IF TRAPPED.”

    While the exploits of “Old Ironsides” and the men who served aboard her gave the public a sorely needed morale boost during the war of 1812, Americans need to stop pretending that US naval victories did anything to alter the strategic situation: Britain’s command of the seas. To reiterate Redmen4ever’s Post 47, “lots of frigates like Old Ironsides” would not have been an effective counter then. And it would not be any better, today.

    Redmen4ever deserves thanks from the forum, for the link to the UK Telegraph article comparing soldiers’ kit. The imagery and captions ought to give the deep thinkers around here something to gnaw on. I’d seen displays of threat type, but never so many, nor coverage of such a broad interval of time.

    The question remains: - as Redmen4ever reluctantly concedes - if the frigate of 1817 cannot be compared longitudinally to the frigate of 2017, why are we still using the same terms? “Traditions comfort us” is not really an answer.

    Comparing the private soldier’s kit of today with the kit of earlier times can lead to useful insights, but deep thinkers ought to be similarly wary. Certainly, an infantryman is ultimately constrained by the weight he can carry. But what does this tell us about the capabilities of that individual soldier?

    Nothing.

  • Le'ts brain storm the next generation warship. Ideas?

    04/16/2017 6:48:26 PM PDT · 64 of 65
    Redmen4ever to schurmann

    Perhaps you will concede that the difference between a frigate during the age of sail, and a man of war (or, ship of the line), was more in its design, and as to how fast it was. Not really in how many guns it was rated. When confronted by a man of war, a frigate was to outrun it.

    In this regard, the revival of the term “frigate” changed the meaning of the term. It originally referred to a boat capable of independent action (although often deployed in pairs or with a lesser escort). When revived, it referred to an escort. Of course, that was in the mid 20th century. Frigates and Destroyers have gotten a lot bigger, Frigates of today displace the tonnage of Destroyers of WWII, and Destroyers of today Cruisers of WWII. So, I think I’m agreed with you that the terms are not very meaningful longitudinally. Only relative to other ships of the day. In my original post, I only meant to refer to the ability of the original U.S. frigates’ to take a hit. Nothing more.

    As for the infantryman. Technologies have changed. But, the basic ability of a foot soldier to march to battle has constrained the weight of his kit. After one and then another revolution in weaponry and so forth, the sheer weight of the infantryman’s kit has remained about the same. Here is an interesting study of British foot soldiers since the Norman conquest.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/world-war-one/11011316/Military-kit-through-the-ages-from-the-Battle-of-Hastings-to-Helmand.html

    Similar results - in terms of the weight of a man’s kit - are obtained for Greek hoplite militia and Roman soldiers. So, while there has been enormous change, there has also been elements of continuity. And, continuity is a good thing. I can speak for myself about this. It is good for a soldier to feel part of a long line of soldiers.

  • Le'ts brain storm the next generation warship. Ideas?

    04/16/2017 5:56:29 PM PDT · 63 of 65
    schurmann to Redmen4ever

    “...original set of six frigates, as they were “heavy frigates.” They were up-gunned relative to other frigates, with especially strong hulls....”

    The capabilities of US “super-frigates” of 1812 were not immediately appreciated by the Royal Navy: led to unanticipated US victories in single-ship actions.

    Despite that, the Royal Navy maintained overall maritime superiority. Had Old Ironsides (or any US super-frigate) suffered the ill luck to get trapped by RN ships of the line, the US vessel would have vanished in a cloud of splinters.

    The armed services cannot resist using older terms to denote modern systems. It might comfort them while things change, but leads to lack of precision.

    After the advent of steam propulsion, steel hulls, rifled breechloaders, nitro propellant, HE bursting charges, and mechanical fuzing, no comparison from Age-of-Sail vessels to the modern warships could have meaning. Yet navies persisted in using terms like “frigate,” “corvette,” etc (they still do it).

    The term “infantry” is still used, though the footsoldier of 1817 has little in common with the footsolider of 2017.

    Lack of precision leads to sloppiness in force support and operations. Brainstorming concepts for future application ought to bring out something better.

  • Le'ts brain storm the next generation warship. Ideas?

    04/15/2017 2:28:15 PM PDT · 62 of 65
    Redmen4ever to schurmann

    Thanks for correcting me. Sometimes I have, you know, attacks of stupidity. Next time when I say a (modern) frigate should be able to take a hit, like Old Ironsides was able to take a hit, I’ll remember that Old Ironsides was able to take a hit. Well, unless I have another attack of the stupids.

    I think you are also “correcting” me on the status of the original set of six frigates, as they were “heavy frigates.” They were up-gunned relative to other frigates, with especially strong hulls.

    When the term frigate was revived, during WWII, it referred to a ship smaller than a destroyer and used primarily for escorting and screening missions. Both frigates and destroyers have gotten larger. Frigates of today are about the size of the frigates of WWII (2 to 3,000 tons), and destroyers of today are about the size of cruisers of WWII (6 to 8,000 tones).

    I actually don’t know how the strongly the nomenclature of today (corvettes, frigates and destroyers) compares to the nomenclature of WWII (frigates, destroyers, cruisers and battleships) and of the age of sail (sloop of war, frigate and man of war). My reference to the frigate of old was not to meant to say more than we should want frigates capable of taking a hit, like the original set of six were able.

  • Le'ts brain storm the next generation warship. Ideas?

    04/15/2017 12:46:18 PM PDT · 61 of 65
    central_va to Reily
    I think they go under and explode breaking the keel, breaking the back of the ship. The ship no longer has the "structural soundness " to stay afloat & fight.

    Without revealing TMI that issue is not an issue anymore.

  • Le'ts brain storm the next generation warship. Ideas?

    04/15/2017 12:44:42 PM PDT · 60 of 65
    PAR35 to Reily

    Two issues to deal with - structural integrity and keeping the water out. Traditionally, they’ve been dealt with as a single problem. Maybe they need to be looked at separately.

  • Le'ts brain storm the next generation warship. Ideas?

    04/15/2017 12:40:01 PM PDT · 59 of 65
    Reily to PAR35
    The problem with anything the size of a battleship ( or carrier!) is the keel. I don't think modern torpedoes strike the ship, I think they go under and explode breaking the keel, breaking the back of the ship. The ship no longer has the "structural soundness " to stay afloat & fight. I am not by any means a naval architect but it seems to me a radically different design approach would be needed. Of course maybe I am all wet on this!🤣
  • Le'ts brain storm the next generation warship. Ideas?

    04/15/2017 11:10:44 AM PDT · 58 of 65
    Carthego delenda est to Jeff Head

    Of possible interest Ping...

  • Le'ts brain storm the next generation warship. Ideas?

    04/15/2017 10:41:59 AM PDT · 57 of 65
    wildbill to taxcontrol

    Jet powered catmarans for duty comparable to the old PT boats give width and stability for a fast ship able to go into shallow waters not suitable for deep draft monohulls.

    Make them a stealthy design without flat surfaces and use some new stealth material to prevent radar discovery.

  • Le'ts brain storm the next generation warship. Ideas?

    04/15/2017 9:57:48 AM PDT · 56 of 65
    correctthought to meatloaf

    Modular
    Steel
    Railguns
    Lasers or (frikin’ lasers)
    Drones

    Or a small drone carrier

  • Le'ts brain storm the next generation warship. Ideas?

    04/15/2017 9:45:44 AM PDT · 55 of 65
    schurmann to Daniel Ramsey

    “... floating island thats at least a mile long. ... tall towers ... reach past the curvature of the earth, ... definitely can handle the largest aircraft ... a psychological point of extreme power. ... “

    Too small for the largest aircraft. They need runways between two and three miles (13,500 ft) long.

    Won’t work with current carrier-based aircraft: they require a vessel speed of over 30 knots to launch - even with steam catapult help. Requires powerful propulsion: limits size & weight of ship.

    Directed energy weapons (lasers) haven’t been developed to hit targets so far out. Railguns cannot hit anything so far out either: projectile would require guidance and course-correction subsystems, which cannot survive acceleration of launch.

    No “skyscraper” tower can be tall enough: at altitudes of 80,000 ft, SR-71 crews could see 350 miles. Geosynchronous satellites orbit more than 23,000 miles: three satellites are still required to reach evey point on earth.

    Geometry beats psychology.

  • Le'ts brain storm the next generation warship. Ideas?

    04/15/2017 9:36:56 AM PDT · 54 of 65
    .44 Special to PAR35

    Sorry, but we no longer have the rolling mills of the size required to produce the armour plate for an Iowa class battleship.

  • Le'ts brain storm the next generation warship. Ideas?

    04/15/2017 9:23:36 AM PDT · 53 of 65
    Bratch to meatloaf
  • Le'ts brain storm the next generation warship. Ideas?

    04/15/2017 9:20:51 AM PDT · 52 of 65
    PIF to bravo whiskey

    Step one: recreate the technology to again make battleship armor ...

  • Le'ts brain storm the next generation warship. Ideas?

    04/15/2017 9:16:57 AM PDT · 51 of 65
    Carthego delenda est to Tallguy

    It’s the computing programs and power that would make it very effective. Some of them could be quite a distance away from the carrier group, others closer in. Take it a step further and incorporate some flying drones as you suggest as well.

  • Le'ts brain storm the next generation warship. Ideas?

    04/15/2017 9:15:04 AM PDT · 50 of 65
    PAR35 to meatloaf

    My suggestion would be a few dozen diesel subs with AIP. Quieter than a nuke, great for coastal patrol, the GOM, and regional force projection.

  • Le'ts brain storm the next generation warship. Ideas?

    04/15/2017 9:12:07 AM PDT · 49 of 65
    Tallguy to Carthego delenda est

    They developed something like that a while back for harbor defense. I believe it was one of those ideas to protect harbors after 9/11.

  • Le'ts brain storm the next generation warship. Ideas?

    04/15/2017 9:07:09 AM PDT · 48 of 65
    Carthego delenda est to Tallguy

    “Make them on the cheap and let them fall into the ocean after the mission.”

    I absolutely agree on making them cheap, but the drones I envision are not airborne, but rather very fast boats just large enough to support the gatling gun, a couple small missiles, and whatever the latest underwater anti-torpedo ‘missile’ is.

  • Le'ts brain storm the next generation warship. Ideas?

    04/15/2017 8:57:32 AM PDT · 47 of 65
    schurmann to Redmen4ever

    “...Frigates. Like Old Ironsides during the days of sail. And lots of them.”

    A misreading of what “Old Ironsides” (USS Constitution) actually was. Fails to recall how she got her nickname.

    Designed by Joshua Humphreys, USS Constitution was built bigger & heavier than typical frigates of the late 18th century, mounting so many guns that some navy-watchers suggested she ought to be a fifth- or sixth-rate “ship of the line” (as battleships were termed then). Her hull contour and square yardage of spreadable canvas permitted her to outspeed all other warships and match other frigates.

    British Royal Navy captains found - to their discomfiture - that Constitution could bring their frigates to battle, during which her main armament (with greater numbers of “long guns”) could outrange their carronades (large caliber, but of lower velocity); solid shot fired from RN carronades were observed to bounce off her sides, greatly boosting the morale of her sailors and earning her nickname.

    When Constitution and her sister ships were being designed, Humphreys ran into resistance: his “super frigates” would cost more per ship; many naval authorities and government officials wanted smaller, simpler vessels in greater numbers. He refused to compromise and got enough leaders to back him; the strength & seaworthiness of his ships occasioned a lot of notice around the globe, before they went into action and cemented his reputation. And - not so incidentally - proved the courage of American sailors, and the prowess and professionalism of the fledgling US Navy.

    Joshua Humphreys was a Quaker. The Society of Friends ultimately kicked him out because he built such fine weapons of war.

    Negates Redmen4ever’s final point about “Lots of them.”

  • Le'ts brain storm the next generation warship. Ideas?

    04/15/2017 8:56:07 AM PDT · 46 of 65
    Tallguy to bravo whiskey

    The “Arsenal Ship”. A very high-value target. BTW, nobody makes battleship armor anymore. That was a specialty steel that doesn’t exist any longer. You might be able to do something akin to composite armor used on the M1A2 tank, but only on selected internal areas of the vessel.