Well,
it had to happen sooner or later. The
Navy was just served with divorce papers from its longtime partner,
reality. We can’t say it’s a surprise,
can we? We’ve seen that reality and the
Navy have been drifting apart for some time.
Still, it’s always sad to see a marriage torn apart. I wonder who will get custody of their child,
the fleet? I’m betting the Navy will and
the fleet will only see reality a couple of times a year, if that.
Apparently,
the event that finally triggered the divorce was the Navy’s latest desire to
turn the amphibious ships into destroyers. From a USNI News article,
Maj.
Gen. David Coffman said his directorate will spend 2019 working out the finer
details of an Amphibious Warship Evolution Plan, which will … put the smaller amphibious transport San
Antonio-class (LPD-17) docks more on par with cruisers and destroyers as
“prominent middle-weight fighters” in a future naval battle. (1)
Here’s
a little bit more detail.
Coffman
said that wargames and tabletop exercises have shown the LPD is just the right
size to be highly effective in the Navy’s distributed lethality and distributed
maritime operations concepts, if they were upgraded to include more lethal
systems. …
“Making
a bet on increased lethality … is absolutely essential” and worth the cost, he
argued. He declined to say what weapon systems he was looking at putting on
these amphibs, but he said the upgrades would allow the amphibs to join the
rest of the black shoe navy in the fight for sea control once they put their
MAGTF ashore.
“Why
aren’t you contributing to air and missile defense? Why aren’t you contributing
to anti-surface? Instead of having to be protected, why don’t you put something
on offer to be part of the killers?” Coffman said of the possibilities of an
upgraded LPD. “The bulk of that will be
Navy systems integrated into Navy weapons architecture.”
The
general described a scenario of multiple LPDs fighting alongside cruisers and
destroyers, and not only would the amphibs have a complement of sensors and
weapons to contribute to the sea and air control fight, but they would also
have a surprise mix of aircraft and surface connectors hidden in their well
decks and flight decks to surprise an adversary closer in to shore. (1)
Well,
that was heavy on fantasy and stupidity and light on reality! Let’s look at the concept in a bit more
detail – detail that the Marines/Navy apparently did not.
Sensors.
The ships will, apparently, have a new “complement of sensors and weapons to contribute to the sea and air
control fight”. Is every ship going
to get Aegis/AMDR/EASR? That should drive
the already multi-billion dollar cost up quite a bit!
Weapons.
This seems to be more than just welding a few Harpoon launchers onto an
open space on the deck. The vague
description seems to imply extensive vertical launch systems, SeaRAM, ESSM,
Standard (?), and, likely, the coming (?) vertical launch anti-ship missile (VL-LRASM),
among others. This is no minor
upgrade! No ship has large amounts of
unused space. Every compartment on a
ship has a function and few (none!) are unnecessary. Every weapon added has to be balanced by the
loss of some existing function to free up space. Where are VLS cells going to go? Where is there room for additional magazines?
Risk. We
only have around 30 amphibious ships to begin with. Are we really going to risk our only
amphibious ships in an air/surface battle that they aren’t designed for? The amphibs are not stealthy (LPD-17 class
claims to have some degree of stealth), do not have integrated air/surface
combat control software suites, do not have optimally located sensors,
etc. Yes, they could be rebuilt to
incorporate all that but the cost to do so boggles the mind. Does it make sense to risk the amphibious
fleet just to gain a few extra missiles in a fight the ships are not suited
for? If we lose amphibs trying to fight
a battle they’re not suited for we lose our amphibious capability (or that
portion, at least) for the rest of the war.
We’re not going to build new multi-billion dollar amphibs in any
relevant time frame.
Mission.
The amphibious fleet doesn’t just “drop off” the Marines. That’s kind of what happened at Guadalcanal
! The entire ship(s) has to be unloaded
to maintain a continuous flow of supplies for the ground fight. Once the ships are emptied, their job will be
to go get more supplies. The amphibs
embarked supplies are only sufficient to maintain the ground force for a couple
of weeks at combat usage levels (always way beyond peacetime estimates!). When is the amphibious fleet going to have
time to hang around for an air/sea battle?
That’s just not their job.
Manning.
You can’t just add weapons with no additional crew. Weapon and sensor operators will be
needed. Additional high end electronic
and weapon system maintenance technicians will be needed. Additonal crew will be needed to feed these
added people. Additional berthing, galley
space, heads, etc. will be needed to service the added manpower. The Navy is already on an ill-advised quest
for reduced manning and this is going to increased manning.
Cost.
While there are no details offered on what the upgrade/conversion would
consist of, it’s clear that this won’t be cheap! These ships already cost multi billions of
dollars and this is just going to drive the price way, way up. The Navy is already screaming about not
enough funding for new ships and that’s before the looming SSBN replacement
program in addition to the normal ship construction. Where is this money going to come from.
I also
have to ask, where and when did this Marine become an expert on naval
battles? This seems like yet another
example of the Marines pushing into areas they aren’t qualified for (aviation,
UAVs, fleet defense, long range strike, cyber warfare, etc.).
Amphibious
ships are highly specialized, incredibly rare and valuable, and not easily
replaced. Why would we want to risk them
in a battle they’re not suited for?
Wouldn’t it make far more sense to build dedicated, optimized destroyers
to fill the destroyer role?
This
has to be the dumbest idea I’ve heard in a long while. I know, I know, the Navy has come up with a
LOT of dumb ideas recently (Zumwalts with no ammo for the guns, for example) so
maybe this isn’t the absolute dumbest but it’s certainly up near the top.
I see
why reality has decided to divorce itself from the Navy! They were in a loving relationship once but have
nothing in common anymore.
(1)USNI
News website, “Navy Pitching Amphibious Warship Overhaul to Boost Lethality,
Survivability” Megan Eckstein, 13-Nov-2018,
“"Why aren’t you contributing to air and missile defense? Why aren’t you contributing to anti-surface? Instead of having to be protected, why don’t you put something on offer to be part of the killers?” Coffman said" shortly before issuing the surgical team rocket launchers and mounting 120mm cannons on the fuel trucks.
ReplyDelete:D
DeleteI was under the impression the DDs were there to keep the amphibs from being shot up, not to act as missile sponges for the DDs. LPDs are larger targets than DDs, missiles tend to go for the big return. Adm. Xi Plan thinks that works for me.
ReplyDeleteCNO, is there some HR requirement to produce nutty reports
Maj. Coffman is fulfilling ?
Looks like the Navy is going the Star Wars route by building the equivalent of Imperial Star Destroyers. Star Destroyers handle ship-to-ship combat and surface bombardment, are carriers and also landing ships.
ReplyDeleteThe Navy's ideal ship!
DeleteThe Navy hears CNO and obeys, they're establishing a PEO for a Star Destroyer. LockMart & ILM will team up for a bid. Boeing & SHIELD will offer will be based on the latest HeliCarrier.
DeleteNO!!! That's Space Force who will be issuing those requirements! After poaching the best from Navy and Air Force, while making jokes and pointing fingers at Army and Marines...
DeleteTaken to it's logical conclusion you will have a 200,000 Tonne aircraft carrier, with 2 runways, well deck,anti ballistic missile system, fully submersible......etc , Oh and we can only afford a one ship navy!
ReplyDeleteThe Army's equivalent is a Bolo Mk 33. They would if they could, you know.
DeleteThe original concept of the San Antonio class included two 8-cell Mk 41 VLS in the bow. I can't see fitting amphibious ships with offensive weapons like Tomahawk or LRASM, but giving them ESSM makes sense. Even the Supply-class Fast Combat Support Ships, before they were transferred to the Military Sealift Command, were fitted with a Sea Sparrow launcher.
ReplyDeleteYour comment is excellent in that it goes to the heart of the matter. What's wrong with some VLS/ESSM? Who could argue against the extra protection? Well, in theory, there's nothing wrong and no one could argue with it. In practice, every piece of equipment and every capability adds to already run-away shipbuilding costs.
DeleteHow about a few Harpoon/LRASM? They can't hurt and might, possibly, come in handy in some situation, right?
A 5" gun might come in handy to provide ground support or anti-small craft defense.
LPDs are operating on their own more and more. A towed sonar array might be useful?
And so on.
Every individual item seems reasonable, at least somewhat justified, and not hugely expensive. However, when they're all added up we have an unaffordable ship that can't be bought in sufficient numbers.
It comes down to balancing capabilities (cost) versus LIKELY threats. How likely is it that an amphib, protected by layers of aircraft and Burkes/Aegis will encounter a situation where they need to use ESSM?
Consider that ESSM is an area defense missile as opposed to SeaRAM and CIWS which are self-defense. Self-defense, to deal with the odd leaker missile is perfectly reasonable. Adding an ESSM area defense missile seems unwarranted. If we had unlimited funds then, sure, add it. But with limited funds, ESSM is an unlikely need.
Or, consider it this way, if we reach a point where 32 ESSMs (two 8-cell VLS with quad-packed ESSM) are needed then the ship is likely doomed anyway because it will mean that the enemy has mustered enough force to do away with the layers of air protection and the Burke/Aegis escorts. At that point, no amount of ESSM will save the ship.
Recall that during WWII, the transports (amphibs of their time) had self-defense weapons only. Yes, some had a 5" gun but it was intended for anti-air self-defense. WWII commanders understood that the job of the amphib was unloading troops. Protection, beyond self-defense, was the job of the escorts. If the escorts couldn't do the job then the transports would have to cut and run (Guadalcanal).
We keep wanting to make every ship a do-everything ship.
Does that make sense to you?
What is protecting an amphibious group today? One, maybe two Burkes, and 6-10 F-35s. That is not many layers of protection. Sure, in combat, they might have an additional escort or two, but that is not a certainty.
DeleteIn WWII, amphibious transports were protected by a myriad of battleships, escort carriers, cruisers, and destroyers. However, we don't enough ships today to properly escort amphibious groups, convoys, and etc. In that case, it makes sense for ampbibs, maybe not all, to have better air defenses.
"What is protecting an amphibious group today? One, maybe two Burkes"
DeleteThis is a peacetime configuration. No one is going to try to conduct a wartime amphibious assault with a single ARG/MEU and a couple of escorts. We'll either assemble the required 20-30 escorts and a couple of carrier groups or we won't attempt an assault. Anything less would be suicide. Don't get sucked into believing that peacetime deployments are indicative of wartime.
The Mk41 is a big piece of equipment, and its missiles are complicated, requiring a lot of support that just isnt available on a none combat ship.
DeleteEven things like SeaRAM and Phalanx, although self contained, require a significant level of day to day servicing.
Also, to return to a point ComNavOps has made previously, you have to train to maintain and use those weapons. Not just the mechanics of firing a SAM, but the doctrine and tactics for effectively using it.
Delete@ComNavOps 3:51 PM: But we don't train like we would fight. In fact, I would argue that at first we would fight exactly as we train simply because we don't know any better. Just like our subs in WWII. Doctrine and training trumps woulda-coulda-should-a's, don't you think?
Deletehttp://www.seaforces.org/wpnsys/SURFACE/Mk-48-missile-launcher.htm
ReplyDeleteNetworked ESSM Blk II launch capability would be fairly easily done.
There is not a shred of evidence that networking will be "easily done". In fact, there is a mountain of indirect evidence to the contrary.
DeleteWe have great difficulty maintaining normal function of networks in peacetime while unchallenged.
We have an abysmal record of maintaining network integrity against both military and civilian cyber attacks with successful attacks being reported several times per month - and those are just the ones that are publicly reported.
The Navy has been working on cooperative engagement capability (CEC) and its close cousin NIFC-CA for many years with mixed success, at best, during unchallenged peacetime conditions.
Our dedicated electronic aircraft EC-130 has been reported to be significantly degraded by the Russians over Syria.
Our networks have not prevented groundings, collisions, and loss of situational awareness by Navy ships and riverine boats.
Our networks were unable to confirm whether attacks even occurred against a Burke destroyer off Yemen.
Every Pentagon sponsored 'hack attack' event has uncovered dozens of network security flaws and breaches in just a matter of minutes!
And so on.
"Easily done"? Only in a PowerPoint presentation!
Werent they pitching the LPD as a hot and ready hull to put BMD on a couple years back? This seems like a Frankenstein ship of that and it's current role. We need to take the same course of action: burn the plans with fire.
ReplyDeleteYou are correct. The LPD-17 class has been proposed as the basis for several different types of ship. Of course, the ship would not be optimized for any of the roles!
DeleteThis is simply lack of strategic thinking. Short sighted managers think their area of operation is the only one. Classic case of an SWO who only thinks surface warfare is the only important thing or the aviation officer who only thinks carriers count or even the marine who thinks the navy is just there to give them a ride. The real professionals think combined arms.
ReplyDeleteCombined arms thinking gives everyone importance which means different ships with separate roles working as a team. Otherwise your a football team of all quarterbacks who can’t defend themselves or all lineman who can’t throw for the touchdown.
You've got it!
DeleteI think it in TLAM terms. Placing this VLS in more ships means not only more Tomahawks available, also more possible directions of attack and area under threat, and they do not need to radiate. I bet this is the actual, offensive rather than defensive, motivation.
ReplyDeleteAnother issue is whether it is a good idea to make multirole Amphibious Ships. I think it is not worth the expense, but maybe they are renouncing to opposed landings and are quietly preparing the amphibs for some usefulness in a peer conflict, meanwhile using them for presence and no peer conflict.
I have to disagree about the value of TLAM on amphibious ships. Recall that the Burke, Virginia, Los Angeles, Ohio (SSGN), and Ticonderoga classes can all shoot TLAMs. That's somewhere around 140 TLAM ships in the fleet. There is simply no need for a few more TLAMs on amphibious ships and absolutely no justification for the added expense. We have more TLAM shooters than we can possible use already!
DeleteYour suggestion that the Navy is tacitly admitting the amphibious fleet has no purpose is interesting. I've stated that I see no need for it beyond a minimal core maintenance capability. However, if the Navy were to arrive at the same conclusion, it would make far more sense to simply put the amphibious fleet into reserve and build new ships for whatever functions they think they need instead of trying to make poor man's destroyers out of amphibious ships.
..."it would make far more sense to simply put the amphibs into reserve..."
DeleteBUT... that's a reality based statement.
The number of ships carrying Tomahawk Land Attack Missiles (TLAMs) is not the proper metric. Rather, it is the total number of TLAMs required to prosecute a conflict.
DeleteUsing reasonable loadouts (like 30 Tomahawks per Burke/Tico) we currently have around 4000 Tomahawk VLS cells with a theoretical max of 9600 if every VLS cell were loaded with a Tomahawk.
DeleteOur current Tomahawk inventory is somewhere in the 2000-4000 range with a best guess of around 2500. In war, we'll struggle just to replace what we expend and will be unable to build up any additional inventory. Thus, our available Tomahawk cells far outnumber our current or potential war inventory and we would likely fire off half to 2/3 of current inventory in the opening few weeks of a war.
Thus, adding a few more Tomahawk VLS cells to amphibious ships not only accomplishes nothing but we lack the inventory to every fill them!
Tomahawks on amphibious ships may sound good when considered in total isolation (so does 16" guns on amphibs!) but the moment you begin to consider the realities of post, the realities of our inventory, our lack of manufacturing to replace inventory, and so on, the idea becomes instantly ridiculous.
Gawd, that's so depressing. It's like we were in 1939 planning for 1 weeks' munitions expenditure in WWII. And that's optimistic. It'd probably be 2 days' worth expect that we could move reloads quick enough. Does anyone else think the US Navy (and Armed Forces as a whole) hasn't been trying out for the part of the gimp in a gay pr0n film?
DeleteI seem to recall not only the LPD-17 but the LSD 41/49 were all designed with space for Mk.41 VLS systems.
ReplyDeleteI think this is a good idea.
Would I build and structure the fleet as it is today? No. but it's what is in the water. VLS for ESSM and a quad packable land attack missile would be worth the effort. I seem to recall a ESSM based land attack missile (POLAR?) and ATACMS have been fired from VLS.
How are you going to pay for this? We're already maxed out on budget, struggling (and failing!) to build a 300+ ship fleet, have a monstrous bill coming for the SSBN replacement subs, and the Ford class carriers are swallowing an entire year's worth of new construction budget ON ONE SHIP every five years. Where is the money going to come from?
DeleteThis is like saying that 16" guns or full fixed wing flight decks are a good idea on every ship. They may be a good idea but they're not an affordable idea. We simply can't afford to make every ship a single-handed war winning ship. It's that simple.
We have to build ships to a single purpose and build them with the MINIMUM capability for the mission and nothing more.
Aye carumba!
DeleteThis looks like another example of the Navy seeking a role/ conops for an existing ship. It's another way to say, "We need more money for ship construction."
On the upside, maybe the Navy can be convinced to build 82,000 ton battleships!!:)
I'm sorry, that really wasn't helpful.
ReplyDeleteSpeaking of a replacement for the Ticonderoga's, Navy thinking is a larger DD with Flag accomodations and excess power plants for energy weapons. Why not a 14k to 15k Cruiser to meet this need? Perhaps 15 or 16 ships would be needed, rather than 70! + DDs.
A Cruiser trimaran configuration would have the beam to support the big rotating antennae, separate hulls to isolate power production, and high stability in rough weather. It's seems reasonable to start the energy weapon deployment on a few ships, rather than commit wholeheartedly to the entire surface fleet.
This may be too reality based for a reasonable answer, but thank-you for your consideration.
We could actually build this with the three mostly useless Zumwalt DDGs. One giant trimaran fitted out as a luxury cruiser, then invite all DoD and Navy bigwigs involved to a maiden cruise, then a massive SinkEx involving every force, right down to Marines and SEALs in RHIBs machinegunning the survivors. It would work wonders for realism in future designs. We could even blame it on Putin for deniability. No one would believe it, but that's hardly the point, is it?
DeleteHere is an article from last year where the author predicted this, calling it a Landing Platform Destroyer. (LPD) http://www.g2mil.com/Devo-Amphibs.htm
ReplyDeleteHe states the LPDs are poor amphibs and recommended far more useful and far cheaper LSTs.
Great point that ARGs are just a peacetime group, far too small for a real war. Yet they are also far too big for peacetime. A two ship ARG (LPD,LHA) is plenty. Cancel the idea of replacing the LSDs with LPDs that are twice as big and four times more costly. Use the savings for LSTs in the reserve and more cargo ships.
"Yet they are also far too big for peacetime."
DeleteWell, that depends on what you want them to do. I've repeatedly stated that the entire concept of an afloat MEU makes no sense. The MEU is too small for any serious combat and, as you suggest, far too wasteful to float around doing nothing. The number of tasks a MEU can successfully accomplish in peacetime is quite limited and most or all can be accomplished just as well by various other CONUS based forces at far less cost.
Too vulnerable to nukes in wartime, too. A poor investment, likely.
DeleteEverything is vulnerable to nukes. What's your point?
DeleteWhat are the top three most likely forcible entry scenarios?
ReplyDeleteIMHO none. In peer conflict amphibious capacity would be used for resupply of friendly forces after enemy damages port infrastructure.
Delete"What are the top three most likely forcible entry scenarios?"
DeleteUltralight SEALs or Marine Raiders swim/helo on to an undefended/isolated beach for Recce/Obs
Heavy Weight Marines land on an undefended / lightly defended beach and move to / seize a nearby port, which will be defended.
Heavy Weight Army Units land at the freshly seized port and deploy for conventional ground ops.
This sounds like an involuntary admission of the truth: USMC or USN dont believe that they will ever have to conduct a real amphibious assault again.
ReplyDeleteJust a weapon system niw looking for a new job since the old one was terminated....sad.
Yes-yes!
Delete70 years since last one
ReplyDeleteI wonder how well it would go over if this idea was flipped: instead of Marine ships acting as distributed fire for the navy, all Navy ships had to support Marines?
ReplyDeleteYou could argue that every Burke can carry two helicopters so put a couple platoons of Marines on each one. and hey those Nimitz carriers can have their decks full of CH-53’s!
Same logic.
Although if the Ford’s magnetic catapults don’t get operational, we might have to turn her into a vtol carrier for the Marines.
Marines "pushed into" aviation 100+ years ago. I think they are maybe qualified to opine.
ReplyDeleteIf you truly didn't understand the comment you're referring to then this isn't the blog for you. If you understood it and are just looking for an argument then this isn't the blog for you. Hmm, I sense a pattern.
Delete