[ezaircon4jc]

They sank my ship. I don't know how I feel about it...

[JJ 911SC]

Me too, a while back... My first ship back in 1976,

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/briti...reef-1.3021329

[Llarry]

During the run up to World War II in the 1930s, the various navies eyed each other's latest warships with interest and undertook designs to counter potential adversaries.

A prime example in the U.S. Navy was the Alaska class large cruiser (CB) design. The CBs were considerably larger than heavy cruisers (CAs) which were armed with 8-inch (203mm) main guns. The CBs were armed with new 12-inch (305mm) main guns. The 1940 Navy planned to build six large cruisers, naming them after U.S. territories: in the end only three ships were begun and only two completed. During the final year of the war, the USS Alaska (CB 1) and the USS Guam (CB 2) saw action in protecting carrier task groups in the Pacific.

Like other Navy warships of the period, the CBs had large numbers of smaller-caliber guns as well: 5-inch dual purpose (anti-surface or anti-aircraft) mounts, 40mm Bofors AA mounts and 20mm lighter AA guns. Unlike U.S. Navy battleships and other cruiser classes of the era, the aircraft catapults and hangars were amidships rather than at the stern.

The third ship of the class, Hawaii (CB 3) was suspended at war's end and never completed. Hawaii's active sisters, Alaska and Guam, did not serve in the active Navy for long after WWII ended. In the end, the taxpayers did not get much return on their investment.

The Alaska-class is often erroneously dubbed a battlecruiser. A battlecruiser is a large warship with battleship armament but relatively light armor and capable of high speed -- the U.S. Navy never built a battlecruiser and the Alaska class, despite its great size, did not quite measure up to battleship armament standards.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska-class_cruiser

[Llarry]

Originally Posted by Llarry

A prime example in the U.S. Navy was the Alaska class large cruiser (CB) design. The CBs were considerably larger than heavy cruisers (CAs) which were armed with 8-inch (203mm) main guns. The CBs were armed with new 12-inch (305mm) main guns.

Another way to compare the ships was tonnage. The Iowa class battleships (BBs) had a full-load displacement of 60,000 tons, the Alaska class large cruisers (CBs) displaced 32,000 tons at full load and the late-war Navy heavy cruisers (CAs) displaced 17,000 tons at full load.

[Lady Jane]

[Llarry]

A bit off-topic, but in the early 20th century, as the U.S. took over the Philippines, they also established defensive measures.

Manila Bay is huge and the entry to the bay is wide. On the northern side is the island of Corregidor, which was fortified. But that left quite a gap to the south. There was, however, a small rocky island that filled the gap to the south and U.S. Army Coastal Artillery fortified that island and named it Fort Drum. It was well-protected from artillery and built of heavy reinforced concrete (20-foot-thick steel-reinforced concrete on top!) in the shape of a ship, leading to the nickname of the "concrete battleship."

For Drum had two armored turrets with four 14-inch coastal defense guns, as well as smaller guns. A tall lattice mast, similar to that on Navy battleships of the era, provided surveillance and fire control.

When Japanese forces assaulted the Philippines in 1941, Fort Drum fought back. As Japan took surrounding areas, the fort was subject to heavy bombardment. It was not until the surrender of the last U.S. forces holding out on Corregidor well into 1942 that Fort Drum surrendered to Japan as well.

When I lived in the Philippines in 1965-66, Fort Drum was always an item of interest on boat rides in Manila Bay. To my knowledge, the gun turrets survive to this day, though the tall mast is no longer present.

[Lady Jane]

[Llarry]

Imperial Japan built some of the largest submarines of World War II and placed into service several aircraft designed for launch and recovery by surfaced submarines.

Here is IJN I-401 at the end of the war in American hands.

[Llarry]

The U.S. Navy and Marine Corps have developed a concept for expeditionary advanced base operations (EABO) designed to counter any wartime expansion of Chinese forces into the Pacific Ocean.

The Marine Corps portion of the concept is the conversion of legacy regiments into Marine Littoral Regiments, which would position relatively small Marine units armed with antiship missiles on Pacific islands. These units would be mobile using the Navy portion of the concept, which is a new ship designated medium landing ship (LSM). The LSM is envisioned as a relatively low-cost vessel that would be bought in numbers and could reposition Marine forces among the islands. From 18 to 35 LSMs would be purchased, and the Navy thinks these modestly sized amphibious vessels could blend in with other ship traffic and be difficult for an adversary to track.

The Navy LSM, however, appears to be headed for trouble. Navy planning documents estimate the cost per ship to be about $150 million. The Congressional Budget Office believes that cost is far too low and that a more realistic cost would be $340-430 million per ship.

Earlier this month, the Navy withdrew its request for proposals from shipbuilders after the proposals estimated far greater costs, so it appears that industry agrees with CBO. Presumably the Navy will re-issue a request for proposals with new cost estimates.

Only generic illustrations of the LSM concept have surfaced. See the attached, which shows a simple ship with minimal armament or electronics.

[Llarry]

U.S. Navy aircraft carriers have aircraft elevators designed to carry two aircraft between the flight and hangar decks. Here are two E-2Ds of VAW-113 on an elevator of the USS Carl Vinson (CVN 70).

[Llarry]

Given the stated goal of China to bring Taiwan into the country -- by force if necessary, developments in the amphibious assault area are of special interest.

The Chinese navy has commissioned three large (about 40,000 tons) type 075 amphibious assault ships so far; these ships carry Marines and have a well deck to handle landing craft. They are projected to build eight of these ships before they are done.

Now they have launched an even larger type 076 amphibious assault ship. This ship apparently will have an electromagnetic aircraft launching catapult to launch small aircraft or unmanned air vehicles and will operate helicopters and landing craft as well. The first ship is in the water, though not yet complete.

The photos are of CNS Guangxi (hull number 32), a type 075 ship and future CNS Sichuan (hull number 51), the first type 076 ship.

In the U.S. Navy these would be considered LHAs or LHDs. Given that each of these ships can carry a thousand or more troops, Taiwan must be understandably nervous about these new PRC ships.

[ezaircon4jc]

Originally Posted by Llarry

Given the stated goal of China to bring Taiwan into the country -- by force if necessary, developments in the amphibious assault area are of special interest.

The Chinese navy has commissioned three large (about 40,000 tons) type 075 amphibious assault ships so far; these ships carry Marines and have a well deck to handle landing craft. They are projected to build eight of these ships before they are done.

Now they have launched an even larger type 076 amphibious assault ship. This ship apparently will have an electromagnetic aircraft launching catapult to launch small aircraft or unmanned air vehicles and will operate helicopters and landing craft as well. The first ship is in the water, though not yet complete.

The photos are of CNS Guangxi (hull number 32), a type 075 ship and future CNS Sichuan (hull number 51), the first type 076 ship.

In the U.S. Navy these would be considered LHAs or LHDs. Given that each of these ships can carry a thousand or more troops, Taiwan must be understandably nervous about these new PRC ships.

If they take as long to sink as my old LPD, they'll be pretty formidable.

[Llarry]

One of the most formidable submarine designs in the world is the Russian Project 885/885-M type, known as the Yasen class missile submarine (SSGN).

The first boat, the Severodvinsk (K-560) took a long time to complete but has been joined by 4 others to a slightly improved standard. Projections are that the class will total 12 boats, split between the Northern Fleet and the Pacific Fleet.

The Yasen class submarines have made great strides in propulsion quieting and are the first Russian submarines to feature a bow sonar sphere. Due to the sphere, they also have torpedo tubes located aft of the traditional bow location and angled outward. In addition, they are equipped with ten tubes (versus four for U.S. submarines), which would seem to me to be a major advantage. As can be seen in the attached profile and illustration, they also have vertical missile launching tubes arranged amidships that fire a variety of cruise missiles.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yasen-class_submarine

[Llarry]

An even higher-priority Russian Navy project than the Yasen class missile submarine class is the Borei-class (Project 955 and 955-A) strategic missile submarine. Eight of these boats are active, with at least three and possibly as many as six to follow. They are homeported in both the Northern and Pacific Fleets.

The Borei-class, like the Yasen, has made great strides in acoustic quieting. These boats are a key component of Russia's nuclear strategic forces.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borei-class_submarine

[Llarry]

The Russian Navy has a number of other submarines in active service. Some of these date to the era of the Soviet Navy and are likely dated in the level of technology.

The Russians also have a number of Diesel-electric submarines and have exported these to other nations. The Kilo class attack submarine is typical. According to Wikipedia, of 59 active Russian Navy submarines, 21 are Diesel-electric. While at a disadvantage in comparison to a nuclear-powered boat in most situations, Diesel-electric boats are useful in local operations and can operate very quietly, though only for so long.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kilo-class_submarine

Lastly, I should mention that the safety record of the Russian Navy in submarine operations is relatively poor; there have been a number of submarine incidents involving loss of life and even sinkings.

[Llarry]

Having posted on the Russian Navy submarine force, I suppose I could offer a brief introduction to the Chinese submarine force.

The Chinese Navy (PRC PLAN) is building like crazy and so the number of units is increasing quickly. That said, here's a snapshot:

Ballistic missile submarines: China has seven active SSBNs, each carrying 12 missiles, of two classes: The Xia class was the first and there is only one boat. It was followed by the Jin class; six of those are active and also carry a dozen sub-launched ballistic missiles.

Nuclear attack submarines: There are nine Chinese SSNs presently active, with a new class under construction. Of the existing boats, 3 are older Han class boats and probably overdue for retirement. Six are more modern Shang class subs.

Diesel-electric attack submarines: There are 50 or so active conventional attack submarines in the PLA Navy's submarine force. The largest and most recent class, the Yuan, includes 21 boats and those units feature air-independent propulsion for extended underwater operations. There are a total of 23 Russian-built Kilo class boats and Song class Chinese copies in service. (The Song class is not pictured.) All of the above submarines have modern teardrop full designs for improved underwater performance. Finally, there are a few obsolescent Ming class boats, based on a 1950s Soviet design, in service -- likely used only in training roles.

[Llarry]

The U.S. Navy has a plan to grow the fleet to 381 ships (from the current 296). While the current annual shipbuilding cost averages $20 billion per year, the cost to grow the fleet would basically double that figure, says the Congressional Budget Office. Whichever political party is on top in Washington, I say this is a pipe dream. For instance, U.S. shipyards cannot currently build the number of submarines authorized.

[Llarry]

The Imperial Japanese Navy's Yamato and Musashi were the largest battleships ever constructed, with a full load displacement of 72,000 tons. Their main battery was nine 460mm (18.1 inch) guns. As built, they were somewhat deficient in antiaircraft weapons.

The Yamato ran trials upon the completion of her construction in 1941. The records were destroyed in 1945 to prevent them from falling into the hands of the Allies, but the generally accepted top speed of these ships was 27 knots -- significantly slower than the largest U.S. battleships which were capable of 32-33 knots.

Neither IJN battleship survived the war, but there is endless speculation about what might have come of a battleship versus battleship duel had they met the U.S. Iowa-class ships. Yamato and Musashi were both sunk by American carrier aircraft in 1944-1945.

The first photo shows Yamato during trials in 1941 and the second shows both Japanese ships at Truk (Chuuk) in 1943. The third shows Musashi under attack in October of 1944 and the last shows Yamato attempting to avoid bombs in April of 1945. Both ships took many bomb and air-launched torpedo hits before succumbing.