(09-11-2020 01:38 AM)vandiver49 Wrote: I'm sorry Owl, but every time I see your scenario, it fails to account for emergent trends and massed missile strikes.
I think we have way overestimated the effectiveness of the Chines carrier-killer missiles. First, you have to find the target over a wide area. Second, you have to be able to generate a fire control solution. Third, you actually have to hit the carrier, and post-launch adjustments to the missile trajectory are difficult. Fourth, the Navy has some defenses to deploy (although frankly we should be harder at work to develop more). Fifth, you can always operate carriers out of range and fly aircraft into the combat zone. I'd say our need to develop more, and more effective, defenses is the biggest concern, but we can do that.
Quote:I actually think we are in the waning days of CVN utility. Your F35B carriers are a good idea and in fact I would convert the 3 Ford class to that mission as well. I think we would come out cheaper to refuel the rest of the Nimitz's rather than restarting the line.
The CVN can still do things that no other Navy can match. I wish we paid more attention to aircraft and defenses, rather than trying to build the ultimate ship--after all, it's the carrier's airplanes that are the weapons, while the ship itself is just an airport. Building this huge, expensive ship, while cutting the air wing from 90 to 60, hardly makes sense. And in that bigger air wing, I'd either bring back the S-3s or build something similar.
Maybe because I was on a conventional CV (CVA back then), but I don't see that nuclear is the be all and end all. You still have to take on fuel for your aircraft, your escorts still have to get fuel, and everybody needs beans and bullets, so you are still dependent on a supply chain. Some advantages, yes, but I see no reason why you can't go half nuke and half (somewhat) smaller and conventional. In WWII, ADM Marc Mitscher liked 4-carrier fast CTFs, where usually he had 2 CVs and 2 CVLs/CVEs, with 18-24 escorts. I see the Lightning Carriers as modern CVEs, conventional CVs/CVLs as the modern CVLs, and CVNs as the modern CVs in that model. Reconfigure the amphib force, utilize the LHAs/LHDs as interim Lightning Carriers, convert the newer ones to CSBA CVLs, and build some conventional Kitty Hawk CVs, and you could reprise Mitscher's model--2 CVNs, a CV, and a CVL/CVE, plus 2 surface squadrons for 20 escorts. That's a force that, quite frankly, nobody else can come close to contending with.
Quote:This would require admitting that the USN has no need for the F35C. It should be cancelled and more F18 E/F/G should be procured in order finally retire all the C/D as well as save the flight hours on the current Rhino's.
I see nothing that the C can do that a B can't do from a Lightning Carrier or CVL. Agree on more 18s. Another thought, I would turn Marine air into a CAS force--Marines keep their Bs and Harriers for now, and build a "Marine A-10" CAS specialist with STOVL capability so it can move ashore early and stay close to the front, ruggedness, a strong gun, and a big bomb load. I know the Marines haven't liked to rely on the Navy for air superiority since Guadalcanal, but even Marine 18s are dependent on keeping carriers close by, and I don't see where it would hurt to move the 18s to the Navy.
As I've said, we need 3 airplanes--a fighter interceptor with long-range sensors and weapons and visibility and maneuverability in case it gets caught in a dogfight, a long-range attack aircraft with stealth and a big bomb load, and a "Marine A-10" for CAS and short-range ground attack. By trying to be all three, the F-35 has so many compromises that it is none of these. The 18 is probably okay for the first one. the Navy has nothing with long enough legs to be the second, and the Harrier is probably closer to the third than anything else right now.
Quote:I'd at least like to look at what it would cost to put conventional drive trains on these ships. That said I think the Freedom class can be used to replace the PC's. I'd take the Independence class and foul the flight deck with Naval Sea Missile launchers and turn it into a anti-surface ship strike platform.
I don't know, but I'm guessing the cost of re-engining them would approach the cost of building them in the first place. And if you did, then all you have is a ship that doesn't pack a punch and can't take a hit. The missile barge has some appeal, but how does the aluminum flight deck stand up to the heat?
Quote:Turn all 3 [Zumwalts] into BMD ships along with the last 6 Tico's. Decomm the rest of the CG's
I get 12 ABM/BMD ships by converting the San Antonios and LXRs. My Zumwalt idea came from an article in USNI Proceedings a couple of months ago. We need new flagships for 6th and 7th Fleets, and having ones that can fight a bit doesn't hurt. And we need a development ship so that we can actually try stuff out at sea before blowing a bunch of money on it.
Quote:This highlights my real issue with naval doctrine: the idea that CG, DDG, FFG as terms mean anything. You have either multi-mission ships or mission specific ships. A larger Tico with all the functions you mention won't excel at any of them. This is why I think the FREMM purchase will not work as we have essentially bought a less capable Burke. What we need is a cheap ASW platform.
I think we need a mix. Some of the expensive multi-purpose platforms that the Navy loves, but fill out the numbers with cheaper single-purpose ships. My surface squadron includes 1 very high-end cruiser (which is big enough and can carry enough sailors to compartmentalize the tasks and be good at all of them), 2 high-end AAW destroyers (like Burkes), 3 mid-range GP escorts (like FREMM/FFG(X), although I actually prefer the FREMM to the FFG(X)), and 4 low-end single-purpose ASW frigates. The problem with doing all single purpose and planning on having several ships together to cover all threats is what if your AAW ships get knocked out, then you are very vulnerable to air attack.
I would also build some modern battlewagons--something to out-Kirov a Kirov and out-Kiev a Kiev--as cheaper options to some carriers. Pair them with an ASW helo carrier to do sea control out of range of most land-based air, to free carriers to focus on power projection. I like the 1980s battle carrier concept--6 16" guns, 10 STOVL jets, 10 helos, and 280 VLS cells. It got killed by the manpower requirements to run a steam plant, but something like a Makin Island plant should give you 30 knots with a lot fewer sailors. I'd also convert about 60 VLS cells into 30 larger cells that can handle something like a Russian Shipwreck anti-ship missile, and IRBMs/SRBMs for shore attack.
I'd use the battlewagons and cruisers (when they are not escorting) the way we used them in WWII--sea control primarily, but pull them in to do NGFS for amphib assaults.
Quote:I actually think amphibious assault is dead and that the resources spent on keeping this mission alive should be directed toward improving unmanned vehicle warfare. As you have mentioned, if cost is preventing the Gator Navy from sailing into harms way, then why continue the pretense? But I would use LPD's as BMD ship as well as NGFS vessels.
Why do you need NGFS if you're not going to do amphib ops? The reason you don't sail an LHA or LHD into harm's way is because if you knock it out, you've basically knocked out the amphib assault. Spread the assault out among a bunch of smaller cheaper ships, so losing one doesn't kill you, and you can operate 3-5 miles offshore, from where an assault can be done. And if you have adequate air cover and NGFS suppression fire, you can minimize the damage.
As far as unmanned vehicles, we need a lot of UAVs, USVs, and UUVs for surveillance and intel, but I'm reluctant to trust actual weapons to an unmanned platform. We recently sailed an unmanned ship from San Diego to Pearl. Great accomplishment--except, it had to be boarded several times enroute to fix problems that arose. And that's peacetime, with nobody shooting at them.
Quote:Ultimately, I think the fight against China is mainly an AF/Army one and that Japan, SK, Guam and possibly Australia and India should be tripping over from the weight of all the pre-positioned assets.
One, unless you are talking a massive overland invasion of China (a fool's errand IMO) how is it an Army show? The area to be contested is almost all water. Even the Army admits that while Western Europe was an Army show, the Pacific belongs to Navy/AF. Two, you just made the argument for an amphib capability. How do all those prepositioned assets get to China? Airborne works for light infantry, but the heavy stuff has to come by water.
