Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Sea Fighter Could Play Crucial Role
Associated Press ^ | 8/6/2005 | SETH HETTENA

Posted on 08/07/2005 1:36:01 AM PDT by dila813

Photo

In this photo provided by the U.S. Navy, the Sea Fighter cruises in the Pacific Ocean Wednesday, July 20, 2005, as it approaches the ship's home port in San Diego. The Sea Fighter is the fastest ship in the U.S. Navy, an aluminum catamaran that can cross an ocean without refueling. It's an example of the Pentagon's efforts to transform the military into an agile fighting force. (AP Photo/U.S. Navy, John F. Williams)

By SETH HETTENA, Associated Press Writer Sat Aug 6, 2:23 PM ET

SAN DIEGO - Like a slender runner in a roomful of weightlifters, the Sea Fighter stands out among ever-bigger warships the Navy is building.

The aluminum catamaran — the fastest ship in the arsenal — could play a critical role in the war on terror, skimming shallow water in the fight against a smaller enemy attacking in swarms of motorboats.

Critics aren't convinced, believing that seapower is the domain of big ships in the middle of the ocean.

"There's a philosophical discussion going on whether the Navy needs more smaller ships or fewer bigger ships," said Paul Francis of the  Government Accountability Office.

After the deadly terrorist attack on the destroyer  USS Cole five years ago, the Navy accelerated efforts to strengthen its fighting ability in shallow water. The experimental Sea Fighter arrived earlier this month in San Diego, where it will spend the next two years as a convertible test vessel for the new breed of fast, agile and relatively affordable ships.

The Sea Fighter, formerly known as the X-Craft, carries a Navy and Coast Guard crew of 26 and went from paper design to christening in less than two years. It carries a price tag of $79 million, compared with $4.5 billion spent on the new USS Reagan nuclear-powered aircraft carrier.

Resembling a commercial car ferry, the Sea Fighter stretches the length of a football field and can hold two helicopters on its deck. Its stern can launch and retrieve manned or unmanned mini-submarines and small boats, and it can be armed with hundreds of low-cost, "cruise-like" missiles capable of supporting U.S. troops hundreds of miles away.

In calm seas, it can exceed 50 knots, or 57 mph, and is capable of entering water as shallow as 12 feet.

Much of the design is new for the Navy. While a conventional warship bristles with sensors and weapons, the Sea Fighter is mostly empty space and weighs about 1,000 tons — one-tenth as much as the newest destroyer. The empty space allows it to be rapidly reconfigured after cranes hoist aboard 20-foot containers holding gear needed for each job — anti-submarine, mine detection, humanitarian missions.

"Sea Fighter is the key to the future," said Vice Adm. Terrance T. Etnyre, commander of Naval Surface Forces.

Whether Sea Fighter itself eventually joins the fleet will depend on how well it fares during testing, said Rear Adm. Jay M. Cohen, head of the Office of Naval Research, which oversaw the ship's development.

"The challenge is to demonstrate the effectiveness of a concept like this," he said.

House Armed Services Committee Chairman Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., has championed the ship since the late 1990s and his wife christened the ship in February at a Washington state shipyard. Both the Sea Fighter and the missiles, called Affordable Weapons, are made by Titan Corp., a San Diego-based defense contractor. But Hunter is frustrated that many in the Navy don't like the idea of building more small ships like the Sea Fighter.

"They'll say 'OK, you got it built. It's not going to the fleet. It's going to be a nice experimental craft. Keep it out of the way. We'll keep building big ships,'" Hunter said.

Plans are that by 2035, the Navy will have as many as 82 smaller, agile ships — a quarter of the future fleet — at a potential cost of $32.7 billion, according to a Congressional Research Service report issued in May.

However, several U.S. government studies have criticized the effort. With many shipbuilding projects competing for the same pool of money, the studies question whether the smaller vessels are as urgently needed as the Navy claims, and just how vulnerable those ships would be to missiles or medium-caliber weapons.

Others have problems envisioning exactly where on the globe the smaller combat ships would be used.

"It's a Jim Dandy concept," said John Pike, who directs the defense and space Web site Globalsecurity.org. "I have just had some difficulty sitting down and pointing to it on the map."

He said a fleet of small ships is marked change from the Navy's core belief.

"It goes against everything they have believed for more than a century," Pike said.

___

On the Net:

http://www.titan.com

http://www.onr.navy.mil


TOPICS: Extended News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: cary; coastguard; seafighter; uscg; usnavy; xcraft
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-49 next last
We are copying the Aussies. These ships worked really well for them, and they really impressed us.
1 posted on 08/07/2005 1:36:01 AM PDT by dila813
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: dila813

bttt


2 posted on 08/07/2005 1:52:28 AM PDT by neverdem (May you be in heaven a half hour before the devil knows that you're dead.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dila813

I sure would like to fill it up and go for a couple week test drive ;)


3 posted on 08/07/2005 1:56:38 AM PDT by Deetes (God Bless the Troops and their Family's)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Deetes

so do we need a national law to ban flip flops?


4 posted on 08/07/2005 1:58:28 AM PDT by dila813
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: dila813
It's an example of the Pentagon's efforts to transform the military into an agile fighting force.

And a transformation into a military wholey unprepared for war with China or anyone that doesn't use camels as its chief mode of transportation.

Meanwhile aircraft carriers and submarines are axed.......

5 posted on 08/07/2005 1:58:37 AM PDT by rmmcdaniell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dila813
so do we need a national law to ban flip flops?

Huh?????

6 posted on 08/07/2005 1:59:16 AM PDT by rmmcdaniell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: dila813

Wrong thread?


7 posted on 08/07/2005 2:01:18 AM PDT by ChefKeith (If Diplomacy worked, then we would be sitting here talking.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: rmmcdaniell

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1458555/posts


8 posted on 08/07/2005 2:02:06 AM PDT by ChefKeith (If Diplomacy worked, then we would be sitting here talking.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: ChefKeith

yea


9 posted on 08/07/2005 2:02:37 AM PDT by dila813
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: dila813

I wouldn't have thought the military would want anything so ugly.


10 posted on 08/07/2005 2:04:16 AM PDT by bkepley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dila813

We're always getting ready for the last war. The day we complete the switch to a Navy of small boats, is the day China will decide to invade Taiwan.


11 posted on 08/07/2005 2:08:25 AM PDT by NavVet (“Benedict Arnold was wounded in battle fighting for America, but no one remembers him for that.”)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rmmcdaniell
Actually, the problem with aircraft carriers is that they are so big.

It takes a ton of force to protect them. China only needs to sneak a diesel sub close to one and sink it.

China has even come up with concrete subs, that are so quiet because they just sit on the bottom until one of our ships comes along and wam. They can't travel far, but they don't need to

The other problem, China has stole technology to create quiet snorkels for its subs. The traitor should be shot.
12 posted on 08/07/2005 2:08:26 AM PDT by dila813
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: dila813

now all they need is the rubber road


13 posted on 08/07/2005 2:44:34 AM PDT by wildcatf4f3 (whats wrong with a draft?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: dila813

The US Army beat them to it. This too is Aussie designed and built.

14 posted on 08/07/2005 3:12:00 AM PDT by R. Scott (Humanity i love you because when you're hard up you pawn your Intelligence to buy a drink.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dila813

Bad Ass!!


15 posted on 08/07/2005 3:12:29 AM PDT by Pro-Bush (We're not vigilantes! We're undocumented Border Patrol agents!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: R. Scott; nuconvert

photo shop?


16 posted on 08/07/2005 3:16:44 AM PDT by F14 Pilot (Democracy is a process not a product)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: rmmcdaniell
And a transformation into a military wholey unprepared for war with China or anyone that doesn't use camels as its chief mode of transportation.

China's navy is mostly a "green water" navy, these catamarans will be essential to contesting them on their own rivers and canals.

17 posted on 08/07/2005 3:20:46 AM PDT by Zeroisanumber
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: dila813

Much of the design is new for the Navy.
-----
Not true. The design has been around since the 60s, along with SES (surface effect ships). This is just the latest iteration. All were going to be the "future of the US Navy" according to the builders. Try to put a nuclear plant and 100 aircraft on one, not to mention effective ASW and AAW capabilities. Even a large caliber gun.

I joked back when the FFG (good AAW lousy ASW) and the DD 1052's (Great ASW, lousy AAW) were the mainstay of the DD navy that you should put two large pipes between them and weld them together. You would end up with a stable cat platform and very good ASW and AAW capability.


18 posted on 08/07/2005 3:47:17 AM PDT by KeyWest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dila813
Where are its guns?
19 posted on 08/07/2005 3:49:09 AM PDT by Citizen Tom Paine (An old sailor sends)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: F14 Pilot
photo shop?

Nope – The Army has had them for several years:

http://www.tomw.net.au/2002/tsv1x/

http://www.ausa.org/www/armymag.nsf/0/7703D577D5242D7185256B9E00704B1E?OpenDocument

The US Army has had its own waterborne force from its time of inception. Soldiers “relocated” the barges needed to ferry Washington’s troops across the Delaware. Here are ones in service from the last half century, including many I served on.

20 posted on 08/07/2005 3:59:44 AM PDT by R. Scott (Humanity i love you because when you're hard up you pawn your Intelligence to buy a drink.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-49 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson