It's important to realize that a lot of the ships in the PLAN aren't ships a western navy would take into combat so the numbers are a bit of a fudge. I think the Ford Class Carriers will work out in the end, but the LCS program has been a horrid disaster from day one.

(04-06-2022 12:22 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Give it VLS cells that can launch cruise missiles and mid-ranged Evolved Sea Sparrow missiles, a long range VTOL drone that can perform recon and strike missions, and smart shells---and youve got a vessel with multiple layers of missile defense that can fire cruise missiles, anti-aircraft missiles, and anti-ship missiles---as well as perform long range recon and strike missions. Yes--its will cost more to fix what should never have been built---but its the only way to keep from falling farther behind while we wait for the next decade of ship building to bring in more capable replacements. These virtually new LCS's will never be great vessels, but they can be made capable enough to free up the more capable Burkes to do other more important duties.
The Navy made a huge mistake with these vessels. Now, its time to fix the mistake as best we can, and move forward.

The problem is that it can't take a hit. Everything was sacrificed for speed, including no armor (weight) and very thin hull and bulkhead construction (weight again). That means you can't actually take it into battle. The engineering plant was also designed to hit a top speed--which has never been hit--at the expense of reliability.

I would re-engine them with conventional diesels, maybe get 25-28 knots out of them, strengthen the helo deck and hangar to operate medium sized helos, and turn them over to the Coast Guard as cutters.

Marines Load Record 16 F-35Bs Aboard USS Tripoli Test of ‘Lightning Carrier’ Concept

Quote:ABOARD THE AMPHIBIOUS ASSAULT SHIP USS TRIPOLI — The Marines broke a record on Sunday when they loaded the most 16 F-35B Lightning II Joint Strike Fighters ever aboard a big-deck amphibious warship.

Under cloudy skies on Sunday afternoon, deck sailors directed Marine pilots onto launching spots and maneuvered others into parking spots on the flight deck USS Tripoli (LHA-7), the Navy’s newest big deck amphibious warship, with more coming later this week.

The fighters belong to two operational squadrons — the “Vikings” of Marine Fighter Attack Squadron 225 and the “Wake Island Avengers” of Marine Fighter Attack Squadron 211, both based at Yuma Marine Corps Air Station, Ariz. – and to Marine Operational Test and Evaluation Squadron 1, based at Yuma and New River, N.C. The Marine Corps is fielding the advanced, multi-mission aircraft to replace its older F/A-18 Hornet and AV-8B Harrier jets.

But bringing more than a dozen of the F-35B jets aboard Tripoli for flight operations – a number that could grow to 18 or 20 this week – along with 500 Marines isn’t just about breaking records and a photo opportunity, military officials told USNI News.

Rather, the week-long MAG-13 training event with Tripoli is the start of identifying and building capabilities for the big deck and its crew and for Marines and their jets to conduct integrated MAG-level operations at sea, something that hasn’t been done in a generation.

“The way we’ve fought over the last 20 years obviously has been a different model. There have been a lot of different squadrons doing a lot of things in the Middle East as needed, as directed,” said Col. Chad A. Vaughn, commander of Marine Aircraft Group 13, based at Yuma.

But adversaries in today’s existing threat and the future fight are much more capable in the air than any the U.S. military, and aviators specifically, have faced in the past. Squadrons must be capable of fighting in more and larger higher-level joint operations, officials say.
The last time MAG-13 fought as an air group was 2003.

“It requires a skill set that we just haven’t practiced as much,” Vaughn said Sunday afternoon aboard Tripoli, speaking with Capt. Joel Lang, the ship’s commander.
Last October, MAG-13 deployed squadrons in a desert integrated field exercise at the Marine Air Ground Combat Center in Twentynine Palms, Calif. It was “an opportunity to learn for a MAG headquarters how to fight from the land,” Vaughn said. “This opportunity arose, in conjunction with operational tests, to put a number of F-35s, as many as we could safely put on here, and [it] simultaneously opened up a training event for us to train our MAG pilots and our MAG headquarters on how to fight from the sea.”

Like its smaller, by-name predecessor, a former helicopter assault carrier, the America-class Tripoli lacks a well deck but is designed to conduct and support Marine Corps air operations. The ship has larger fuel storage and more weapons magazines than the existing LHD class of big-deck amphibious ships, as well as advanced command, control and communications systems.
“We’re looking at options that could potentially … be provided to the joint force commander and the MEF commander to put more aircraft on this ship. The ship is uniquely suited, obviously, for aircraft operations,” Vaughn said.

The “Lightning Carrier” concept has been tossed about for years by Marines and the F-35 program office. “It just worked out perfectly with the opportunity for us to practice and train with the MAG,” Vaughn said, adding that operational testers with VMX-1 are aboard Tripoli this week evaluating lessons learned from the F-35B operations.

The concept takes a page from history. In the invasion of Iraq in March 2003, amphibious assault ship USS Bataan (LHD-5) and USS Bonhomme Richard (LHD-6) were dubbed the “Harrier carriers,” each supporting two squadrons of AV-8B Harrier attack jets for Commander Task Force 51 as U.S. and combined forces pushed toward Baghdad. The ships at the time typically had a detachment of Harriers among an aircraft mix composed largely of Marine Corps helicopters.

The at-sea exercise has been in the works for six months. Lang, a surface warfare officer who’s commanded Tripoli since September 2020, said he and MAG-13 agreed to turn the training into something of an operational rehearsal for the ship’s crew of 1,100 and his staff, working together to determine not just what is the maximum jets the ship could support but what is the “optimum” number from an operational mindset.

“It has to be what works best, so when we put them in the operational environment, it is the most efficient way to employ this capability,” Lang said. “The team is so fired up to be a part of optimizing the most lethal at-sea force.”

The week-long event, slated to wrap up Thursday, is about putting MAG Marines and Tripoli sailors through the paces in launching, recovering, moving, maneuvering and working on the F-35B jets aboard the ship. “We’re learning how to fight as a MAG. How do we operate the deck? How do we not lock his deck up with all these airplanes out here?” Vaughn said.

Questions remain how the Lightning Carrier concept will operate in the fleet without a capability to tank F-35Bs organically or without airborne early warning aircraft like the E-2D Advanced Hawkeye aboard. USNI News understands that there is set to be broader testing with the concept later this year.

“Our goal,” Vaughn added, is that “if the Navy and Marine Corps team decides that this is an option at some point, here’s the playbook that we’ve developed.”

Navy and Marines Divided Over the Amphibious Fleet’s Future as Delays and Cancellations Mount in FY 2023 Budget Request


More F-35s, Spare Parts Included in Navy’s $4B Unfunded Priorities List

(04-06-2022 01:30 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-06-2022 12:22 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Give it VLS cells that can launch cruise missiles and mid-ranged Evolved Sea Sparrow missiles, a long range VTOL drone that can perform recon and strike missions, and smart shells---and youve got a vessel with multiple layers of missile defense that can fire cruise missiles, anti-aircraft missiles, and anti-ship missiles---as well as perform long range recon and strike missions. Yes--its will cost more to fix what should never have been built---but its the only way to keep from falling farther behind while we wait for the next decade of ship building to bring in more capable replacements. These virtually new LCS's will never be great vessels, but they can be made capable enough to free up the more capable Burkes to do other more important duties.
The Navy made a huge mistake with these vessels. Now, its time to fix the mistake as best we can, and move forward.

The problem is that it can't take a hit. Everything was sacrificed for speed, including no armor (weight) and very thin hull and bulkhead construction (weight again). That means you can't actually take it into battle. The engineering plant was also designed to hit a top speed--which has never been hit--at the expense of reliability.

I would re-engine them with conventional diesels, maybe get 25-28 knots out of them, strengthen the helo deck and hangar to operate medium sized helos, and turn them over to the Coast Guard as cutters.

Based on what Ive seen, thats the case for most smaller frigates and corvettes. None of these smaller vessels can really take a hit from a modern anti-ship missile and keep on fighting. A dingy with IED all but sunk a Burke in the gulf. Heck a mine crippled a Ticonderoga class cruiser. Those British destroyers all were done for with a single hit in the Falklands.

Thats the problem with all these sophisticated modern vessels----it just doesnt take much to make 'em stop working. Small ships are going to sink (or at the very least become defenseless) if they actually get hit. Their survivability relies almost entirely on active and passive defenses that attempt to keep them from taking that hit. I agree---they probably cant take a hit----but I dont think they are alone in our inventory when it comes to that measure. They are the smallest warship we have....so they are going to be more vulnerable.

Understand---they are horrible and I dont know why we are still building these things----but they are the hulls we have for a while. The Sherman was a pretty crappy tank---but we had a lot of them they ended up being able to do most of the jobs we needed them to do. Until we have 35 new frigates to replace them, just dont see where we have much choice but to try to make these LCS hulls as functionally useful as possible. Hopefully they can handle some of the lighter work and let the more capable Burkes handle more important jobs.

(04-06-2022 02:04 PM)CrimsonPhantom Wrote:  

Quote:Questions remain how the Lightning Carrier concept will operate in the fleet without a capability to tank F-35Bs organically or without airborne early warning aircraft like the E-2D Advanced Hawkeye aboard. USNI News understands that there is set to be broader testing with the concept later this year.

[url=https://news.usni.org/2022/04/03/navy-and-marines-divided-over-the-amphibious-fleets-future-as-delays-and-cancellations-mount-in-fy-2023-budget-request?mc_cid=65768f0ee5]

The Lightning Carrier concept has attracted a lot of attention and opinions, both pro and con, over the last few years. I think it is good that the concept is at least getting some testing now.

Here's the problem with the existing situation. First the LHAs/LHDs are too big and expensive ($3.8B now) to be risked close enough into shore to conduct a viable amphibious assault. Back in my Gator Navy days, we felt that the LHAs/LHDs were putting way too many eggs in one basket, and that one (un)lucky rocket or torpedo could wipe out your whole assault. Acknowledging that problem, current USN doctrine requires them to stay 25-50 miles offshore, and from there we do not have any viable ship-to-shore connectors for moving tanks of heavy artillery ashore. Boats are too slow, helos and V-22s can't lift the load, and LCACs are too unreliable for combat.

Second, the LPD-17 (San Antonio) class ($2.2B) are also too expensive to be risked close into shore. The USN plans on carrying a whole amphibious ready group (ARG) on an LHA/LHD and an LPD-17. So what we have is a set of "amphibious" ships that can haul a lot of Marines and equipment around, but can't get them ashore for an assault. So the Marines are getting rid of tanks and heavy artillery, and getting out of the amphibious assault business, becoming instead an ultra-light infantry force that's not far removed from a bunch of Boy Scouts with BB guns.

The Marines have really been put into a bind by two developments. At the same time as the USN was converting its "amphibious" fleet from a set of ships that could conduct assaults to a set of ships that can't, the Army has pushed the Marines closer and closer to a baby army force. This started IMO in Vietnam, when Westmoreland sent the Marines north to I Corps instead of south to the Mekong Delta, where Marines and Navy could have formed a formidable joint riverine force, which Army and Navy never truly achieved. From there through Afghanistan and two bouts with Iraq, the Army has kind of used the Marines as their caddies, throwing them an operation here and there while forcing them to become more and more like baby army with a baby air force. The obvious end game is that at some point the need for an independent Marine Corps will disappear, and they will be absorbed into the Army.

The Marines have also opined on the future of the amphibious fleet. Their idea is a light amphibious warship (LAW) which is too small, too slow, and not at all stealthy. They see the LAW as the support ship for their expeditionary advance base operations (EABO) concept, which puts a very small detachment ashore in harm's way, from there to conduct anti-ship, anti-submarine, and anti-air operations.

The whole idea strikes me as incredibly stupid, the result of one bad decision following another for the past 5 decades. The Marines are in serious danger of talking themselves out a mission, resulting ultimately in their being absorbed by the Army.

So here's what I would do.

One, I'd have the Marines take a page from what the Royal Marines did when faced with budgetary extinction half a century ago--reinvent themselves as a combination commando and amphibious force. Combine the special operations command (SOCOM) and the Marines, like the Brits did, with the Army, Navy, and Air Force keeping Green Berets, SEALs, and AFSOC as complementary organizations of about 10,000 each, like y the British SBS and SAS. Marines would give the air superiority mission back to the Navy (Guadalcanal was a long time ago) and with it their F/A-18s, and focus instead on getting Marines ashore and providing close air support (CAS) once they get there. The Marines have historically punched above their weight because they have combined infantry, artillery, armor, and air and a lower command level than any of the other services. Come up with a Marine combined arms amphibious regiment of an infantry battalion, a tank company, three artillery batteries (tube, rocket, and anti-air), and an air detachment. A force of commandos plus 30 amphibious regiments would result in a much smaller Marine Corps, maybe in the 140,000 range, but it would be a more focused and elite organization.

That Marine detachment would run to 3,000-4,000 personnel, so have the Navy build a modern version of the classical amphibious squadron/ready group (PhibRon/ARG) to haul it and get it ashore--a smaller LHA/LHD like the Spanish Juan Carlos, a LPH like hte French Mistral, an LSD/LPD like the British Albion, a conventional LST with a beaching bow, an LKA/LPA that could be a converted merchantman, and an assault fire support frigate with 155mm guns, a rocket battery like an enlarged LSMR, and counterbattery radar. At current prices that squadron would cost about $4B, or basically the cost of one LHA/LHD.

What to do with the LHAs/LHDs and LPD-17s? Convert the LHAs/LHDs to Lightning Carriers and convert the LPD-17s to the ABM/BMD ships that HII has proposed for the same hulls. The ABM/BMD ships can deploy in/around major ports like Guam, Yokosuka, Pearl, Anchorage, Seattle, San Francisco, Los Angeles, New York, Chesapeake Bay, Jacksonville/Miami, New Orleans, and Houston/Corpus Christi to provide protection that we currently do not have.

A lot of people have criticized the Lightning Carrier concept for being too small and for lacking E-2 and refueling capabilities. If we operate the Lighnings paired with supercarrier CVNs, the CVN can handle those duties, and the Lightnings can carry the vast majority of helos, freeing up flight deck space on the CVNs for more fighter/attack aircraft.

We have 10 LHAs/LHDs plus one under construction. We have 11 CVN aircraft supercarriers. Form two-carrier battle groups with one CVN and one Lightning Carrier, and expand the numbers of each to provide 12 carrier battle groups (CVBGs) or 6 of Marc Mitscher's WWII four-carrier carrier task forces (CTFs). Start building a new class of somewhat smaller conventional carriers (CVs), maybe somewhere between Kitty Hawks (80,000 T) and Midway (55,000 T). As those come online, replace the Lightning Carriers on a 1-for-1 basis, until we have 12 CVN supercarriers and 12 conventional CVs.

Littoral Combat Ships Have Hull Cracks

They might need to change the mocking nickname common among enlisted Navy from "Little Crappy Ships" to the more accurate "Little Cracking Ships" as it may be more accurate.

Quote:More Littoral Combat Ship Drama? – The United States Navy’s littoral combat ship (LCS) has long been seen as a platform seeking a problem rather than addressing one, and that is why less than fifteen years after entering service the first two of the LCS warships have already been retired.

There are now reports that if the U.S. Navy has its way, more of the ships could see their careers cut short.

It isn’t just a lack of clear-cut mission that has been at issue, however.

The LCS vessels have been prone to breakdowns, and now it appears that some of the LCS fleet is suffering from structural defects that even have led to hull cracks on several vessels. Those defects have even limited the speed and sea states in which ships can be safely operated.

The U.S. Navy has only recently disclosed that the cracks have impacted the Independence-class variant of the LCS, but it hasn’t yet addressed the class-wide repercussions of the actual defects. Which ships are suffering from the issues hasn’t been disclosed either.

However, according to documents obtained by Navy Times, there have been warnings that the cracks could grow if the ships travels faster than 15 knots in seas with maximum heights of about eight feet.

https://www.19fortyfive.com/2022/05/the-...ll-cracks/

Very interesting video that walks us through the recently completed and declassified report detailing what exactly occurred when the US Navy sub (USS Connecticut) was damaged back in October of 2021. Its kinda long, but very interesting. Short version is it was very preventable and was much worse than earlier reports. At some points it appears there was a very real danger of losing the vessel. What you'll see is---as usual---it wasnt just one thing that caused it. It was the intersection of a number of issues and problems that created the circumstances that allowed the collision. That said, the crew's solid performance after the collision probably saved the ship during the moments when the danger of losing the vessel became acute.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IPr7Yrwgly4

(05-25-2022 03:07 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Very interesting video that walks us through the recently completed and declassified report detailing what exactly occurred when the US Navy sub (USS Connecticut) was damaged back in October of 2021. Its kinda long, but very interesting. Short version is it was very preventable and was much worse than earlier reports. At some points it appears there was a very real danger of losing the vessel.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IPr7Yrwgly4

I'v always wondered about that one and if they were being open about what happened.


This still might be my favorite thread on this board

Navy to Take 'Safety Pause' Monday After Rash of Marine Corps, Navy Aircraft Crashes

Quote:Last Wednesday, my colleague Jennifer Van Laar provided an update about reports of a Marine aircraft crash in southern California:

A military aircraft purportedly carrying “nuclear material” has crashed in Imperial County, CA, about 30 miles north of the Mexican border. Five people were aboard, and officials believe that all five were killed in the crash.

Later, there was this update:

At 3:22 PM Pacific, Fox News Pentagon reporter Liz Friden tweeted that “A Marine Corps spokesperson confirms a 22B Osprey belonging to 3d Marine Aircraft Wing crashed near Glamis, CA today. ‘Contrary to initial reports, there was no nuclear material on board the aircraft,’ the spox says”

We now know the names of the servicemembers killed in that crash — and one of them has a special connection to the Los Angeles Dodgers baseball team.

CNN:

Former Dodgers player Steve Sax’s son was among the five Marines killed when their aircraft crashed during a training mission in California on Wednesday.

Capt. John J. Sax, 33, was among the crew that crashed in the desert near Glamis, California.

…

The Marine Corps identified the four other service members as Cpl. Nathan E. Carlson, 21, of Winnebago, Illinois; Capt. Nicholas P. Losapio, 31, of Rockingham, New Hampshire; Cpl. Seth D. Rasmuson, 21, of Johnson, Wyoming; and Lance Cpl. Evan A. Strickland, 19, of Valencia, New Mexico.

All five members were based at Marine Corps Air Station Camp Pendleton, California, officials said.

The Wednesday crash has been one of a rash of military aircraft crashes recently. And on Sunday, the Navy has announced that it is placing all non-deployed aircraft in a “safety pause” starting Monday, according to the NY Post:.

The U.S. Navy will start a “safety pause” on Monday for non-deployed aircraft following two crashes in Southern California this month that caused the deaths of a pilot and five Marines, officials announced.

“As a result of recent crashes involving U.S. Navy and Marine Corps aircraft, Commander, Naval Air Forces has directed all non-deployed Navy aviation units to conduct a safety pause on June 13 in order to review risk-management practices and conduct training on threat and error-management processes,” the Navy said Saturday in a statement.

“In order to maintain the readiness of our force, we must ensure the safety of our people remains one of our top priorities,” it continued. “Deployed units will conduct the safety pause at the earliest possible opportunity.”

The NY Post story notes that the other crash, which took place June 3, involved a Navy training mission in Trona, California, in which Navy Lt. Richard Bullock died.

I always found it darkly amusing knowing the history of the Osprey that they make the white house press corps travel in one.

Actually, the Osprey has a pretty good safety record. It's just that its crashes have been spectacular.

(06-13-2022 01:47 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Actually, the Osprey has a pretty good safety record. It's just that its crashes have been spectacular.

For a new technology, it's incident rate has been fairly low. Just like school shootings, the national media like to make it a major issue when something that expensive and new crashes in order to get those ad dollars.

(06-13-2022 02:38 PM)49RFootballNow Wrote:  

(06-13-2022 01:47 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Actually, the Osprey has a pretty good safety record. It's just that its crashes have been spectacular.

For a new technology, it's incident rate has been fairly low. Just like school shootings, the national media like to make it a major issue when something that expensive and new crashes in order to get those ad dollars.

I'm not really sure how useful it is in a combat environment. You look at the landing envelope, and it's pretty badly exposed to enemy fire, perhaps worse than a helo because it has very little mobility during the transition phase.

(06-13-2022 01:47 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Actually, the Osprey has a pretty good safety record. It's just that its crashes have been spectacular.

I do remember that during its development, I read numerous stories about Ospreys crashing and how some air crews were really leery about flying it. Since it went operational, the crashes have been much fewer.

(06-21-2022 10:06 AM)CrimsonPhantom Wrote:  

What a crock!

My pronouns are I, me, and my/mine.

(06-21-2022 11:18 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-21-2022 10:06 AM)CrimsonPhantom Wrote:  

What a crock!

My pronouns are I, me, and my/mine.

Military has a history of integrating first. No reason to lessen your recruiting pool

(06-21-2022 11:52 AM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  

(06-21-2022 11:18 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-21-2022 10:06 AM)CrimsonPhantom Wrote:  

What a crock!

My pronouns are I, me, and my/mine.

Military has a history of integrating first. No reason to lessen your recruiting pool

Perhaps you aren't familiar with the "Don't ask, Don't tell" policy of the past. They've had gays in for decades (at least).

(06-21-2022 12:00 PM)ODU BBALL Wrote:  

(06-21-2022 11:52 AM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  

(06-21-2022 11:18 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-21-2022 10:06 AM)CrimsonPhantom Wrote:  

What a crock!

My pronouns are I, me, and my/mine.

Military has a history of integrating first. No reason to lessen your recruiting pool

Perhaps you aren't familiar with the "Don't ask, Don't tell" policy of the past. They've had gays in for decades (at least).

Perhaps you are forgetting the military ended racial segregatio in 1948. How many years is that before the Civil rights act? And are you familiar with the full name of DADT; don’t ask, don’t tell, don’t pursue, and don’t harass. That policy was created because at the time that was the limit of the issue’s political capital. A policy that only lasted for 18 years and has been gone since 2011. But hey what’s the big deal when some states are trying to take away gay rights? Hell the military accepted visible tattoos before a lot of places did.

The military is not going to lessen their recruiting pool.