I see...someone must have given me bad RUMINT (rumor intelligence).

But my questions still stand. Could it fend off and survive?

quote:

Originally posted by Ex_CG_GM:

quote:

How does the composite material of the NSC hold up against a hit like that as opposed to a 270' getting hit?

The NSC is not made up of composte material. I believe it is a steel hull and aluminum superstructure.

Didn't the Navy try, then summarily reject, this steel-aluminum concept because of survivability issues?

quote:

Originally posted by cobra_brass:
And since we have mentioned the different threats, should we re-exammine the threat of asymmectric warfare? It seems more likely than a missle attack. Could any cutter fend off an attack from a small boat(or several) with an RPG?

How does the composite material of the NSC hold up against a hit like that as opposed to a 270' getting hit?

It does appear that Hugo Chávez is less than pleased with us:
http://au.news.yahoo.com/070625/2/13tpm.html

It seems that a response post corrects your presumption that the NSC is made of composite material.

As far as aluminum, I believe that proved fatal for the British naval vessels with aluminum superstructure during the Falklands War.

From what I've read, the DDG 1000 will have a composite superstructure.

Assymetric warfare is almost impossible to stop by conventional means Take for instance the Cole. If anything, that means there needs to be a close in weapon system that can automatically identify and neutralize an assymetric target of interest such as a small boat loaded with explosives. What are the rules or conditions? No small boats within 100 yards of a NSC? Or with the NSC have detectors of explosives which can track and detect a threat from at least 200 yards away?

Well...
I would fall back on three main things.
1: what condition are you steaming in?
-As soon as my boats Chop'd into 5th fleet, all guns were maned.
2: Rules of Engagement (self explanitory)
3: CO's battle orders

The MAST


Here is your answer

quote:

Originally posted by NYC_Coastie:
I wanted the USCG to take over some of the FFGs from the USA Navy but the point was made that two gas turbines are too thirsty for USCG operations. The DDG has four gas turbines!

USCG ships need to run usually on diesels with ocasional gas turbine use for short periods. That is why the NSC is CODAG.

The NSC design is being fixed and that problem is under control. By the way here is a quiz for you: which part of the DDG is used on the NSC. It is easy to see.

Ed

quote:

Originally posted by cobra_brass:
Well...
I would fall back on three main things.
1: what condition are you steaming in?
-As soon as my boats Chop'd into 5th fleet, all guns were maned.
2: Rules of Engagement (self explanitory)
3: CO's battle orders

None of the things you are asking for in this post can be discussed here.

quote:

Originally posted by LMuldowney:
The MAST


Here is your answer

quote:

Originally posted by NYC_Coastie:
I wanted the USCG to take over some of the FFGs from the USA Navy but the point was made that two gas turbines are too thirsty for USCG operations. The DDG has four gas turbines!

USCG ships need to run usually on diesels with ocasional gas turbine use for short periods. That is why the NSC is CODAG.

The NSC design is being fixed and that problem is under control. By the way here is a quiz for you: which part of the DDG is used on the NSC. It is easy to see.

Ed

*******************************

Ed, that is a real easy one. It is the price tag. The same price tag on the DDG is on the NSC, that is $750 million each.

Thad's Boy sends (ThadsBoy@yahoo.com)

quote:

Originally posted by NYC_Coastie:
Correct!

I also believe the NSC is going to do great on sea trials. The proven propulsion system is already in use on a heavier displacement class of ship.

Ed

Okay Ed, then you'll be the first one volunteered to weld the structural problems under the bilge pumps, and other places in the next few years.....

Latent defects... many will arise from the NSC's faulty design as the Navy has so predicted.....

Plus vital interior cabling that should be low smoke type won't be.... you can thank Mr. Mike Dekort for pointing that out.....

Thad

the navy has already spent 554.8 million and the ship is not even built yet DDG1000
http://www.ddg1000.com/pressroom/?id=14

here is more info:
Congress appropriated $3.6 billion for construction of 4 new destroyers in fiscal year 1997 and gave the Navy authority to procure a total of 12 destroyers in fiscal years 1998 through 2001 using a multiyear acquisition strategy. In its biennial budget submission for fiscal years 1998 and 1999, the Navy requested about $2.8 billion and $2.7 billion, respectively, for a total procurement of six destroyers
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/ddg-51.htm
That is about 900 million each
So how is that less then the NSC???

quote:

Originally posted by ThadsBoy:

quote:

Originally posted by LMuldowney:
The MAST


Here is your answer

quote:

Originally posted by NYC_Coastie:
I wanted the USCG to take over some of the FFGs from the USA Navy but the point was made that two gas turbines are too thirsty for USCG operations. The DDG has four gas turbines!

USCG ships need to run usually on diesels with ocasional gas turbine use for short periods. That is why the NSC is CODAG.

The NSC design is being fixed and that problem is under control. By the way here is a quiz for you: which part of the DDG is used on the NSC. It is easy to see.

Ed

*******************************

Ed, that is a real easy one. It is the price tag. The same price tag on the DDG is on the NSC, that is $750 million each.

Thad's Boy sends (ThadsBoy@yahoo.com)

quote:

Originally posted by NYC_Coastie:
TB:

I won't need to. The ship will be fine with a great crew!

The 123 is history. Congress has a record low favorability rating because Americans are sick of a do nothing Congress that spends too much time and money on duplicate investigations.

Ed

Duplicate investigations? So what, as long as the problems are being addressed and not swept under the carpet.

Some technical experts predict that the NSC single combining gear will fail and the ship will be dead in the water during its second or third patrol.

It won't make 28 knots speed, that has been pointed out in numerous technical sources.

quote:

Originally posted by NYC_Coastie:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by LMuldowney:
Thad

the navy has already spent 554.8 million and the ship is not even built yet DDG1000
That is about 900 million each
So how is that less then the NSC???

The price of the next geneation DDG1000 destoyer is much higer. Five billion dollars for one ship!

Ed

*********************

Ed,

1 DDG 51 = 1 National Security Cutter in price only!

Obviously the DDG 51 has a lot more capability for the same price!!!!!

Thad's Boy

quote:

Didn't the Navy try, then summarily reject, this steel-aluminum concept because of survivability issues?

I don't know the answer to that, but isn't that how are 378's are built?

quote:

Originally posted by Ex_CG_GM:

quote:

Didn't the Navy try, then summarily reject, this steel-aluminum concept because of survivability issues?

I don't know the answer to that, but isn't that how are 378's are built?

As are the FFG-7 OHP Class. Then we went back to 100% welded steel construction for survivability issues.

quote:

I don't know the answer to that, but isn't that how are 378's are built?

Originally, the 378s were constructed with aluminum for the superstructure and stack welded to steel decking.

The resulting electrolysis due to the electron configuration differences between the two metals created a lot of heartburn due to corrosive effects.

Not sure how this was rectified over the years however.

mw

Not sure if this was accurate or not but while I was on the Chase in 83-84, many told me that the 378' hulls were based on the plans of the Oliver Perry Frigates, only shorter.

1983 photo of Gitmo, REFTRA. The Chase, WHEC-718 and an Oliver Perry Frigate. It may be the USS Stark as I know it was there when we were.


Don

I just looked up the FFG hull number, 20. It was the USS Antrim which is now part of the Turkish Navy. It was decommisioned from the U.S. Navy in 1997.

Don

Ooooh, LOOK...a picture of a 378 with a REAL GUN on the bow! Cool!!!

And don't forget the triple torpedo tubes on each 01 deck! I would have loved to see them load them in rough seas. We had to unload the torpedoes using leather handstraps one year in Northern NJ for a yard period. Them suckers were heavy!

Don

quote:

I just looked up the FFG hull number, 20. It was the USS Antrim which is now part of the Turkish Navy.

I just looked up the Turkish Navy. Quite a fleet they have going there!

"Not sure if this was accurate or not but while I was on the Chase in 83-84, many told me that the 378' hulls were based on the plans of the Oliver Perry Frigates, only shorter."
----------------------------------------

Just the opposite was the prevailing theory in the early 1970s. The 210' MEC and the 378" HEC were designed with the dual plant, diesel and gas turbine. Once the mechanics of it were worked out in the cheapskate fleet, the U.S.N jumped in with the Spruance, Perry and other classes. Around the 378' debut, the KNOX class DE/FF came out, and the hull form was similar, but single screw steam plant.

The 378 hull form was rumored to be the basis for many of the new Navy destroyer types. I think even the construction techniques were practiced on the CG cutters. The scantlings/lay up aren't as heave as a WW 2 type destroyer. Almost commercial ship type construction.

Just note the comparisons to the 327'HEC or the 180' WLB or even a butt ugly 255' HEC. Real heavy construction.