[Llarry]

Steam power was not new, but in the late 19th century, navies transitioned to steel (and armored) warships, while retaining the option for sails. The USS Chicago was among the first four such ships -- the so-called ABCD ships -- commissioned into the U.S. Navy. Cruiser Chicago was completed in 1886 and did not have a hull number; the numbers started a few years later.

The Chicago displaced 4,500 tons -- less than half of a current missile destroyer -- and was capable of 16 knots under ideal conditions. She was armed with four 8-inch guns, eight 6-inchers, two 5-inchers and had a few smaller guns as well. Chicago had a crew of 300 men.

Chicago was modernized later in the 1890s, losing most of her sails and her mainmast.

Chicago was a transitional type that was obsolete upon completion.

[Lady Jane]

And this is how it's done, North Korea.

[M-technik-3]

[QUOTE=Lady Jane;32109189]And this is how it's done North Korea.

Sp where did the damage occur? When it struck the pier it came off? They have launched ships this way for years correct? This one just did not enter the water correctly.

[Llarry]

[QUOTE=M-technik-3;32109469]

Originally Posted by Lady Jane

And this is how it's done North Korea.

S0 where did the damage occur? When it struck the pier it came off? They have launched ships this way for years correct? This one just did not enter the water correctly.

Lady Jane's video snippet is the first I saw of it. I think it's hard to tell what went wrong -- center of gravity of the ship? Not properly watertight? I just know that it is gratifying to see.

[Lady Jane]

Originally Posted by Llarry

Lady Jane's video snippet is the first I saw of it. I think it's hard to tell what went wrong -- center of gravity of the ship? Not properly watertight? I just know that it is gratifying to see.

The Gif video is not from North Korea but a jab at the hermit Kingdom for not knowing how to launch a boat.

Many articles here: https://www.bing.com/news/search?q=N...unch&FORM=EWRE

[M-technik-3]

Not a Navy but it's kinda related.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/05/u...-vehicles.html

Seems every year now we are having a ship carrying EV's catch fire and burn uncontrollably. Thoughts on this? Insurance has to be skyrocketing on vessels that carry ev's now.

[ezaircon4jc]

Originally Posted by M-technik-3

Not a Navy but it's kinda related.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/05/u...-vehicles.html

Seems every year now we are having a ship carrying EV's catch fire and burn uncontrollably. Thoughts on this? Insurance has to be skyrocketing on vessels that carry ev's now.

Article's behind a paywall...

[M-technik-3]

Morning Midas enroute to Mexico catches fire off of Adak Alaska crew bails.

https://gcaptain.com/coast-guard-ove...-alaska-coast/

[Llarry]

One of the most numerous convoy escorts in the North Atlantic during World War II was the Flower class corvette. Here's HMCS Mayflower.

The Flower class corvettes were quite small -- just 925 tons and 205 feet long. They were crewed by 85 men and their steam powerplants could muster a speed of 16 knots. But they had radar, sonar, depth charges and a 4-inch gun -- Mayflower's is pointed right at the camera.

294 of the class were built and operated by the Royal Navy and the Royal Candian Navy. A few were operated by U.S. crews under Reverse Lend-Lease and designated as patrol gunboats (PGs).

The only survivor is HMCS Sackville which serves as a museum ship in Halifax, Nova Scotia.

That had to be rough duty in heavy seas!

[Lady Jane]

Speaking of Corvettes: Israeli's Sa'ar 6-class corvette kicking ass against the Houthis.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sa%27ar_6-class_corvette

[Llarry]

Originally Posted by Lady Jane

Speaking of Corvettes: Israeli's Sa'ar 6-class corvette kicking ass against the Houthis.

I've said before that the small size of corvettes means that they do not possess the full range of warfare capabilities, but the Sa'ar 6s are an exception -- very capable warships across the full spectrum.

[JJ 911SC]

Originally Posted by Llarry

... The Flower class corvettes were quite small -- just 925 tons and 205 feet long. They were crewed by 85 men and their steam powerplants could muster a speed of 16 knots. But they had radar, sonar, depth charges and a 4-inch gun -- Mayflower's is pointed right at the camera.

294 of the class were built and operated by the Royal Navy and the Royal Candian Navy. A few were operated by U.S. crews under Reverse Lend-Lease and designated as patrol gunboats (PGs).

The only survivor is HMCS Sackville which serves as a museum ship in Halifax, Nova Scotia.

That had to be rough duty in heavy seas!

And they were built in less than one year.

Now a day, from contract signed to delivery is 10+ years.

https://www.canada.ca/en/navy/servic...sackville.html

[Lady Jane]

KV Bjørnøya, The Newest Vessel Being Built For The Norwegian Coast Guard.

[Llarry]

There is some weird stuff going on in the Department of Defense right now. The normal pattern is that the DoD submits a presidential budget proposal to the Congress, who then holds hearings, etc., and ultimately authorizes procurement of defense items such as ships, aircraft and weapons. This year, that proposal did not include any missile destroyers (which have been procured at 2-3 per year) or missile frigates. Many members of Congress are puzzled by the lack of info -- press reports indicate the defense budget will increase but so far it looks like a major decrease in defense spending.

On the aircraft side, the Navy purchases of F-18E/F Super Hornets appear to be over (with 698 total aircraft bought), yet only a dozen F-35C carrier strike fighters are in the budget.

It's as if everybody is milling around not knowing what to do.

[Llarry]

Periodically, a U.S. Navy Military Sealift Command hospital ship, which is normally kept in reserve status, is activated for a goodwill cruise. This year the USNS Comfort (T-AH 20) will be doing a cruise in the Caribbean. The Comfort and her sister ship, the Mercy, have civilian mariner and Navy support crews; they are augmented by large temporarily assigned medical and dental staff when active.

These two large ships were originally built as tankers and entered commercial service in 1976. In the mid 1980s, the U.S. Navy acquired them and converted them for use as hospital ships.

[Llarry]

The U.S. Navy had a major problem during the first two years of World War II with torpedoes. The Navy had developed three new torpedoes during the 1930s and had ramped up production quickly in the late 1930s and during the war. But the torpedoes had flaws. Since the nation was at war, the flaws were kept from the public, but the users -- the crews of torpedo bombers, PT boats, submarines and destroyers -- were aware of the flaws. The torpedoes often did not work properly. Inadequate pre-war testing was part of the problem, but even more scandalous was the reluctance and/or inability of the ordnance specialists to recognize and correct the deficiencies. Until well into 1943, there were numerous instances of torpedoes that ran straight towards an enemy ship, only to pass under without exploding or even bounce off the side of the enemy ship without exploding.

The torpedoes had two types of fuses. One was the straightforward contact fuse that would set off the warhead upon impact. The other was a magnetic fuse that would sense the magnetic field of the steel enemy ship and explode the warhead under the ship's keel, thereby breaking the back of the enemy ship. In addition, U.S. torpedoes had poor depth control and often would pass under the enemy without detonating. Needless to say, this was extremely frustrating to the U.S. crews who braved enemy fire only to have their primary weapon malfunction.

Well into the war, the Pacific Fleet took matters into their own hands and conducted a series of tests at the operator level. They fired torpedoes into a net and found that the "fish" ran far deeper than the set depth. They also found that the contact fuse was not robust enough and would deform upon striking the target and thereby malfunction. The magnetic sensing fuse worked, but not if the torpedo was too deep to sense the ship's magnetic field.

Compounding these problems was cost. Torpedoes cost about $10,000 each (well over $200,000 today) and both before and during the war, leadership would not approve expensive testing at $10K per test. Of course all the duds that were fired at enemy ships and did not explode cost $10,000 per shot as well, so one could say that the torpedoes were being constantly tested -- albeit not under instrumented conditions -- and were failing those tests.

The bureaucracy took some time to respond to the Pacific Fleet's findings, but by late 1943 the depth control problem had been fixed and the contact exploder beefed-up. Fired torpedoes started sinking Japanese ships, and the three types of torpedoes (Marks 13, 14 and 15) ended up as deadly weapons and remained in service for years. The sub-launched Mark 14 stayed aboard U.S. submarines until about 1980.

[Llarry]

The torpedo post above ^ reminds me that in the Spring of 1971 as a U.S. Navy sailor, I spent a month on an older diesel-electric submarine. Sleeping accommodations were austere to say the least and another sailor and I ended up sharing a bunk in the torpedo storage space under the torpedo room. This compartment was crowded with torpedoes, but some were long, and some were short -- place a sheet of plywood and a thin mattress on the rack short one and you had another sleeping space. Since we were working 12 hours on and 12 hours off, it worked -- when he was sleeping, I was working and vice versa.

The (psychological?) issue was that the long torpedoes were nuclear-tipped Mark 45 torpedoes. I had a nuclear torpedo to my right and another to my left, one below me and one above me. As crawled in to my "torpedo cave" I also had the props of a short one just inches from my head. When on the surface or snorkeling at shallow depth, the whole lot of heavy torpedoes, which were well-secured, would shift ever so slightly. What could possibly go wrong?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_45_torpedo

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_37_torpedo

[ezaircon4jc]

Originally Posted by Llarry

The U.S. Navy had a major problem during the first two years of World War II with torpedoes. The Navy had developed three new torpedoes during the 1930s and had ramped up production quickly in the late 1930s and during the war. But the torpedoes had flaws. Since the nation was at war, the flaws were kept from the public, but the users -- the crews of torpedo bombers, PT boats, submarines and destroyers -- were aware of the flaws. The torpedoes often did not work properly. Inadequate pre-war testing was part of the problem, but even more scandalous was the reluctance and/or inability of the ordnance specialists to recognize and correct the deficiencies. Until well into 1943, there were numerous instances of torpedoes that ran straight towards an enemy ship, only to pass under without exploding or even bounce off the side of the enemy ship without exploding.

The torpedoes had two types of fuses. One was the straightforward contact fuse that would set off the warhead upon impact. The other was a magnetic fuse that would sense the magnetic field of the steel enemy ship and explode the warhead under the ship's keel, thereby breaking the back of the enemy ship. In addition, U.S. torpedoes had poor depth control and often would pass under the enemy without detonating. Needless to say, this was extremely frustrating to the U.S. crews who braved enemy fire only to have their primary weapon malfunction.

Well into the war, the Pacific Fleet took matters into their own hands and conducted a series of tests at the operator level. They fired torpedoes into a net and found that the "fish" ran far deeper than the set depth. They also found that the contact fuse was not robust enough and would deform upon striking the target and thereby malfunction. The magnetic sensing fuse worked, but not if the torpedo was too deep to sense the ship's magnetic field.

Compounding these problems was cost. Torpedoes cost about $10,000 each (well over $200,000 today) and both before and during the war, leadership would not approve expensive testing at $10K per test. Of course all the duds that were fired at enemy ships and did not explode cost $10,000 per shot as well, so one could say that the torpedoes were being constantly tested -- albeit not under instrumented conditions -- and were failing those tests.

The bureaucracy took some time to respond to the Pacific Fleet's findings, but by late 1943 the depth control problem had been fixed and the contact exploder beefed-up. Fired torpedoes started sinking Japanese ships, and the three types of torpedoes (Marks 13, 14 and 15) ended up as deadly weapons and remained in service for years. The sub-launched Mark 14 stayed aboard U.S. submarines until about 1980.

I believe there was a movie about this with the Duke... Operation Pacific. IIRC, it was a pretty good movie.

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0043887/

[M-technik-3]

Wish I had my ancient photos of reenlisting on the USS Constitution. That was back in 1996 can not say I even had a 1.2 mp camera. I know there are photos because we were granted full access tour. It was very cool. I can't imagine sailing in a ship like that.

It's in drydock right now being worked on again.

[Llarry]

The Philippine Navy has scored a major win with the planned acquisition of six modern frigates to be transferred from Japan. The entire Abukuma class will go to the Philippines, which has been in the news as an aggressive Chinese navy expands its operations near Philippine waters.

The six Abukumas were commissioned in the JMSDF in 1989-93 and are rated as destroyer escorts (or frigates). They feature Diesel and gas turbine propulsion systems and displace 2,550 tons full load.

[Llarry]

Originally Posted by Llarry

The normal pattern is that the DoD submits a presidential budget proposal to the Congress, who then holds hearings, etc., and ultimately authorizes procurement of defense items such as ships, aircraft and weapons.

I've now had a chance to look over the 2026 shipbuilding budget submission for the U.S. Navy. The format has changed a bit and it is still not crystal-clear to me what the numbers are, but here's my revised hot take:

-- Columbia-class ballistic missile submarine (the 3rd of the class): 1; the first of the class, SSBN 826, is scheduled to be delivered in October of 2027. (It will be another year or two after that until the boat can make its first deterrent patrol.)

-- Virginia-class attack submarine (the 42nd of the class) 2 requested

-- Guided missile destroyer -- 2 requested -- 97 of these DDGs have been built or ordered!

-- Littoral combat ship -- None requested. (33 have been built or ordered so far)

-- Guided missile frigate -- None requested. It appears that only six of these FFGs will be bought. The original plan was for 20 ships.

-- Amphibious assault carrier - 1 requested. (no photo)

-- Amphibious transport dock - 1 requested. (no photo)

-- Medium landing ships -- 9 requested These relatively small landing ships are an important enabler for planned Marine Corps forces on Pacific islands and are meant to blend in with merchant ship traffic. The goal is 18 to 35 of these relatively simple ships based on an existing design -- which design is not yet clear to me. If the Navy really wants these LSMs to blend in, don't paint them haze grey; paint them black or red or whatever with white superstructure. (No photo)

-- T-AGOS -- 1 requested; these civilian-manned ocean surveillance ships are concentrated in the Pacific and clearly designed to keep track of Chinese submarines. They feature a twin-hull SWATH design and are not built for speed; instead, they motor along at low speed towing a very long sonar array. The lead ship is scheduled to be delivered in 2031 and this ship in 2032.

[Llarry]

The U.S. Navy's nuclear-powered attack submarine force:

-- 42 Virginia-class SSNs have been authorized to date; the last dozen of these have a longer hull with the insertion of a section containing vertical launch tubes for more cruise missile capacity. The Virginia class displaces about 7,800 tons submerged.

-- A new class -- currently dubbed SSN(X) -- to succeed the Virginias has been delayed from 2035 to 2040. It is likely to be considerably larger than the Virginia-class SSN -- perhaps as much as 10,000 tons submerged displacement -- and the Navy wants a larger weapons capacity, more speed and better quieting. (No photo.)

-- Two large Seawolf class SSNs (9.500 tons or so submerged) are in service, as is a modified/lengthened variant, the USS Jimmy Carter (SSN 23) (12,158 tons submerged; no photo) which conducts special operations. All three of these boats are homeported in the Pacific. They were authorized in the 1980s, but the high cost limited the class to just three submarines.

-- 23 of the older improved Los Angeles-class SSNs (over 7,000 tons submerged displacement) are still active (of 62 boats at their peak) but going fast. The latest boats now have about 30 years of service behind them.

Back in my day, American SSNs had a max speed of slightly over 25 knots. Subsequent generations have increased speed (over 30 knots); I believe the Seawolf class is the speed champion at 35 knots or so. Even more important than sheer speed is quieting -- the goal is for a submarine to sound like a "hole in the ocean" that makes no sound.