Worse, in many cases the US doesn’t own the bases it uses and must seek permission to use the bases for staging or supporting actual combat operations. We have seen many instances of “allies” refusing permission for the US to conduct combat operations from foreign bases. What is the point of having a forward base if it’s not available when needed for combat?
Singapore, for example, is unlikely to allow US combat operations in a conflict with China, choosing, instead, to try to walk the narrow path of neutrality.
We see other countries operating small, short ranged vessels and wonder why we can’t do the same. China, for example, operates the excellent Houbei class missile boat which carries an immensely powerful anti-ship missile weapons fit on a very small hull. Iran, NKorea, Russia, and China all operate small, silent, deadly non-nuclear submarines (SSKs). Russia operates several small, powerful corvette/frigate classes.
Why can’t the US operate such vessels? Well, the factor that we overlook is that those countries are operating the vessels in their own home waters, near their own ports. Thus, range, endurance, and ready maintenance support is not an issue. In contrast, the US operates on a forward deployed basis, generally far from friendly bases. Small vessels have limited range and endurance. For example, if a small missile boat has an endurance of one week and it takes 4 days to get from the nearest base to the operating area and the same to return, there’s no operating time left for the actual patrol.
So, if forward bases are not the solution or, at best, only an occasional or peacetime solution, what alternative is there? The answer comes from our dim and distant past and is, of course, motherships. Motherships, or tenders as they were referred to in WWII, were commonly used in times gone by but have been abandoned by the Navy over the last few decades.
During WWII, tenders were used to support PT boats, submarines, and destroyers, among other applications.
Let’s take a closer look at some of the WWII tenders and refresh our memories about their functions and capabilities.
Dixie Class (AD) – This was a five ship class of destroyer tender built during the pre and early war years. USS Dixie (AD-14), for example, spent 1942-1944 supporting operations in the Solomons before moving to Ulithi during late 1944 and early 1945 and then finishing the war at Leyte.
 |
| Dixie Class Destroyer Tender |
Otus Class (AS-20 / ARG-20) – This was a single ship class built as a submarine tender in 1940 and later reclassified as an internal combustion engine repair ship near the end of the war. Otus operated across the Pacific, as needed, and provided submarine, mine, and small craft tender services as well as engine repair. She received one battle star.
 |
| USS Otus |
USS
Argonne (AS-10) – The Navy operated several submarine tenders during WWII
though not a purpose built class.
Argonne was typical of the type of commercial or general ship obtained
by the Navy and converted for use as a tender.
The ship operated in the Solomons, Palaus, Leyte, and the Marshalls.
 |
| USS Argonne |
We
see, then, that the Navy has operated both purpose built tenders and tenders
converted from commercial vessels. There
is no reason why the same couldn’t be done today. Tenders are not combat vessels and could be
built to non-military standards based on cheap commercial vessels. Alternatively, existing commercial vessels
could be easily and economically converted.
The
Navy operates squadrons of Cyclones and MCM vessels which could greatly benefit
from tenders in terms of time on station.
The LCS has always been intended to operate in squadrons although what
the Navy intends to do with them now is anyone’s guess since they have no
useful mission modules. Tenders would
also open up the possibility of acquiring and using SSKs.
Aside
from the obvious benefits of tenders in terms of support, replenishment,
repair, and maintenance, tenders can be repositioned as needed which allows flexible
locating of operational areas.
Motherships
are also highly useful for supporting mine countermeasure operations. This application is obvious enough that I won’t
bother describing it.
Currently, the Navy has the Afloat Forward Staging Base ship which could be a mothership, though it seems a bit oversized, but seems to have no actual, specific use for it.
The
Navy is so fixated on building the high end, ‘sexy’ ships that it is ignoring
the various auxiliary ships that are the actual backbone of any fleet. Motherships/tenders are a force-multiplier,
allowing other types of vessels to operate effectively in forward areas. We need to abandon of obsession with multi-billion
dollar ships and begin building the support ships that will actually keep the
fleet operating in war.
I can see the use of mother ships for ASW operations. The mother ship could also host any ASW helicopters so the ASW "corvettes" can be made smaller / simpler / cheaper thus more numerous.
ReplyDeletePresumably the US Navy keeps a register of civilian ships that might be available to it in a war situation and their capabilities - other navies certainly do. Certainly helicopter motherships could be easily found and helicopters are readily available. Presumably large numbers of civilian motor cruisers could be found and have missiles/sensors and/or guns (or MCM equipment) fitted and motherships for these would not be difficult. There aren't many civilian submarines around (although there are some) and some form of small sub like a WW2 X-Craft could be produced in large numbers and only require limited training. The uses of this sort of thing in asymmetric warfare, even during peacetime, would be numerous.
ReplyDeleteTenders don't operate out in the open ocean. They still require a sheltered harbor or port to do their work, and thus host nation access. They just reduce the footprint on the ground and make their support facilities more mobile.
ReplyDeleteThey do open the potential to use less built-up bases, such as those found around smaller, less populated islands.
Take a look at a map of the first island chain and Indonesian region. It is packed with islands that can shelter/host a tender during war.
DeleteAll of those islands are "owned" by someone, so if you're worried about host nation support (e.g. Singapore), it's the same problem.
DeleteDuring an all out war with China, no one is going to be too worried about temporary clandestine uses of a nearby island. That's a world different from asking someone to allow use of a known, established base.
DeleteIn a war, all those illegal islands that China has built become islands that we can seize and use.
"All of those islands are "owned" by someone, so if you're worried about host nation support (e.g. Singapore), it's the same problem."
DeleteAs a practical matter, if the Phillipines or Indonesia want to object to the US use of one of their small islands as a tender's staging point, there's not much they can do militarily or politically if the US goes "I want to use this island." And it's not like either nation has enough forces to patrol all their islands to make sure nobody's squatting there.
"During an all out war with China, no one is going to be too worried about temporary clandestine uses of a nearby island. That's a world different from asking someone to allow use of a known, established base.
"In a war, all those illegal islands that China has built become islands that we can seize and use."
The lack of ability on part of the Phillipines and Indonesia to fully patrol their islands and ensure nobody is squatting there does give a certain measure of plausible deniability to all sides, and does provide PH and IN with a diplomatic excuse. "It wasn't our fault we didn't know the US was temporarily squatting there, we can barely patrol our own waters..."
While being able to use China's island bases against them is the sort of poetic irony I enjoy, my concern is that the Chinese have probably taken that possibility into consideration, and already have ASBMs and cruise missiles targeted for their Spratlys bases; at best case they simply wreck the infrastructure so it can't be used against them, at the worst case they take out the bases along with any American forces using them.
"While being able to use China's island bases against them is the sort of poetic irony I enjoy, my concern is that the Chinese have probably taken that possibility into consideration,"
DeleteWho suggested using the bases?
Follow the thread!
Delete"Tenders don't operate out in the open ocean. They still require a sheltered harbor or port to do their work"
We're talking about a sheltered bay or inlet as opposed to open ocean - hence the comments about the Chinese islands - NOT THE BASES THEMSELVES.
"Take a look at a map of the first island chain and Indonesian region. It is packed with islands that can shelter/host a tender during war."
"During an all out war with China, no one is going to be too worried about temporary clandestine uses of a nearby island."
You, then, injected the idea of using the bases themselves and then immediately argued against your own idea! If you're going to argue with yourself, no need to post it.
A tender won't be a combat ship so it won't raise fleet size to whatever the mythical goal number is tomorrow. Loose a Burke or an F-35 for glorified cargo ship or three... I mean the navy aborted the Pegasus class partially by not building a tender.
ReplyDelete"The Navy operates squadrons of Cyclones" well realistically one and it acts like it is kissing its sister. Well to navy brass it probably is since it looks like USGS ship.
From what I can tell out of 14 Cyclones, ones seems to have been handed over to the Philippines, 11 are out of Bahrain and 2 in Florida. But again the navy hates them although do seem to need them and don't have enough. If fact we know this because USCG Patrol Forces Southwest Asia exists. Such that 6 Island class cutters have been stationed in Bahrain since 2003, along boarding teams and maintenance staff.
No matter how logical Tenders would be and the potential or current usefulness of the smaller ships they would support I can't see the USN going that way. Even the LCS in explicitly accepting being tethered to a base had to made into massively under armed frigates sized ship.
"I can't see the USN going that way. "
DeleteOf course not! However, as I've stated many times, this blog exists to discuss both the current reality and the alternative, better future. This post is about the alternative, better future.
If we all just accepted the current reality, nothing would ever change, would it? Someone has to put voice to an alternative, better future for there to be any hope of change. Even then, change will be difficult. Just ask Billy Mitchell, or Fulton, or Rickover.
I was not trying to critical - I would not bother replying if I did not essentially agree with most of your arguments. Just pointing out ignoring the issues you want to raise seems baked into the USN at the moment.
DeleteAgain go back to the USCG deployment in the Gulf. Looking at the Island class its irresponsible. Those ships have no business in those waters. The new Sentinal class cutters up armed from the start perhaps. Add Typhoon mounts instead of 4 50 cal manual mounts (the newest ones with gun and 2 missiles) and a crew trained to use a stinger, maybe a 30mm cannon. That would make sense be not that far behind a Cyclone. But the USN is abdicating its responsibility if the US needs the USCG to do long term foreign work with ships that can easily be over-matched by Iranian gunboats and have nothing but their guns to fire at say drones.
I can see the USN talking Congress out caring about the logistical benefits of tenders, but I am surprised that they can justify leaning on the USCG to do their job.
"I was not trying to critical"
DeleteAnd I didn't take it that way. I was just making sure that you understand the two levels of this blog and don't quit when confronted with 'reality'. Many people do. I, for one, won't give in to 'reality' - or, as my wife puts it … you're crazy!
If someone from the USN actually sees this post, they're going to see the 5-inch guns on the Dixie and think, " Ooh. Distributed Lethality!"
ReplyDeleteWell at least they could count as warships then might even get them to buy
DeleteExcellent post. A mothership/tender model is absolutely the way forward for effective ASW and can serve other purposes as well. Amphibious warfare ships like the San Antonio class could be used immediately for this purpose while better designs concepts are developed. The tender could act as the ASW command ship the way cruisers do for AAW in carrier groups. A single tender ship could sustain 6-8 ASW patrol boats (300-600 tons) or ASW corvettes as well as several helos for prosecution. This increases detection capability by an order of magnitude and means the primary submarine detection ships are too small for a submarine to attack and reveal its position. Effective ASW means getting smaller, and the US can't get smaller without tenders.
ReplyDelete" Effective ASW means getting smaller,"
ReplyDeleteThere is a huge element of truth to this statement and, unfortunately, not too many people get it. The Navy builds multi-billion dollar Burkes and Zumwalts and thinks they'll go play tag with submarines - that's insane!
Very good point.
Its a tad ironic or just black humor that the navy named it massive white elephant after the man who was a champion of small ships and tenders...
DeleteDARPA's new Sea Hunter USV takes it in the other direction ... if they can put a useful payload on it and keep it affordable.
DeleteWhat would you consider a useful payload?
DeleteJust for reference, the Navy operated destroyer tenders until the end of the Cold War. The Yellowstone-class (4 ships) were the last destroyer tenders built. Though they had a short service life as all four ships were decommissioned in the 1990's.
ReplyDeleteWhile tenders are not combat vessels, they would be targeted in a war and should be able to protect themselves. The Yellowstone-class were equipped with a single 5"/38 dual purpose gun. A modern tender ought to have several CWIS and SeaRAM systems plus anti-torpedo defenses as well.
I think its a given every ship should have a CIWS gun and seaRAM. The CIWS useful against a whole raft of threats (if turned on). A seaRam seems absolutely necessary in a world of missiles faster than an Exocet. Passive defenses as well.
DeleteIf the supported boats are small enough (think FACs and green water boats) the tenders can act as carriers. Why sail an LCS across the ocean when a tender can grab about a half-dozen Small Patrol boats and take them all where they need to go?
ReplyDeleteThose small patrol boats will be needed to recon and secure local waters and ports for the rest of the fleet against enemy demolition divers and suicide/swarm boats.
I fear that LCS is being awkwardly wedged into the role of tender for UAVs, UUwVs, and little RHIB boats. All it's got going for it is a large mission bay and helo-deck.
I absolutely agree. It seems that the ability to service and repair ships somewhere other than at mainland shipyards has been sadly discarded, but tenders are in fact more important than ever with our fragile thin skinned warships. Just the time involved in a trans-Pacific crossing for repairs that could be done in-theatre takes a valuable asset off the board for too-long. In a China confrontation, im assuming that Japanese bases would be regularly targeted and not really a proper haven for repair or rearming, so tenders/repair ships have a hugely increased importance.
ReplyDeleteIn a somewhat related thought, a crucial ability to add to tender-type ships would be alongside vls reloading. Is the Afloat Forward Staging Base capable of this??
" ability to service and repair ships somewhere other than at mainland shipyards has been sadly discarded,"
DeleteQuite right. I would not, though, that our ships and their equipment have become so complex as to render them unrepairable in the field, in many cases.
For example, the series of LCS combining gear failures appear to have been unrepairable in the field and, in fact, were extremely challenging to repair even in fully equipped yards.
Radar/sensor systems have become so complex that they are not repairable by anyone other than the manufacturer.
The WWII days of fairly basic equipment that could be fixed with some welding and machining appear to be largely over. I still think tenders have great utility but, likely, not as great as once was the case.
This suggests that we should be rethinking the degree of complexity we design into our ships. Instead of a nightmare of a complex combining gear, we should probably just have straightforward, direct-coupled power systems. Sure, they might be less efficient but they would be far more rugged and field-repairable.
This suggests that we should be rethinking the degree of complexity we design into our ships. "Instead of a nightmare of a complex combining gear, we should probably just have straightforward, direct-coupled power systems. Sure, they might be less efficient but they would be far more rugged and field-repairable."
Delete3D Printing might restore some ability to manufacture some spare parts/repairs at sea.
Otherwise If it simply the case you can have the ships machine shop fabricate parts anymore than maybe the answer is a lot more spare parts on hand and in stock. I suspect the amount of such is now no more robust than the amount of Tomahawk missiles on hand.
"3D Printing"
DeletePeople think 3D printing is some kind of magical capability. Setting that aside …
As an example, the problem with the LCS combining gear is that it is so complex that it took weeks for the manufacturer to even figure out what went wrong, let alone repair it. A tender would have little or no hope of conducting field repairs. It's less a question of can we manufacture a gear and more a question of can we even figure out what failed? The combining gear was so complex that the, supposed, best trained sailors in the fleet (that was the claim made by the LCS program) couldn't figure out how to operate the equipment without wrecking it. If they can't figure out how to operate it when it's unbroken, how are they going to figure out what's wrong when it breaks? This is what I mean about complexity.
I do not think 3D printing is magical but it might restore at least some on ship repair fabrication ability.
DeleteThe LCS is the easiest low hanging fruit to offer up. It is the end product of navy crew reduction trends that are I think a poor decision. But I can't see a way to a make a more simple Aegis system for example w/o loosing nominal ability. Making all of it more modular and replaceable and having those spares available that seems a worthy goal.
If the systems have to be so complex that for optimal ability they can only be repaired in a port than that suggests the do it all wonder box - be it a LCS or a Burke is a mistake.
The conundrum remains than the solution is more different ships at less cost so loosing one is not critical. But that means more people and that is something the navy hates. All their recent ships are predicated in their own documentation about reduced cost of ownership via less crew. More non generalist ships means more crews. Anathema.
Although some propulsion plant parts could be too big to carry, or replace in the field, I imagine Yellowstone-sized ships should be able to stock or fabricate a large majority of things to put a ship back in action. Many electrical/electronic systems are fairly modular, whether in a chest sized cabinet, or just replacing individual circuit boards. Electronics techs on board ship are trained to repair to component level, but rarely do, instead swapping in a fresh board and sending the failed one back to a depot, so many critical systems are plug n play repairs, as long as new parts are available. So the new tenders could be basically cheap civilian spec freighter designs, with lots of stockrooms, and space also for repair and fabrication shops. Add the token Navy crew contingent and a few CIWS, etc for local defense and we're set.
ReplyDeleteAs far as not having the technical ability, heres my brainstorm... Have the tenders under USNS, and crew it with civilian techs and even manufacturer reps. Put the real experts in their field aboard... I understand that the pay would be high, especially in a war zone, but in earlier posts CNO stated "who cares about costs, we're at war...!" which is of course true... And who can put a price on getting a few billion dollar, irreplaceable warships back in the fight vs sending them home, when hostilities may be over before they can return and contribute???
Aegis should have been designed to be more modular so that segments of the array can be pulled in the field and replaced to fix battle damage. Easy repair in the field should be part of the specification!
ReplyDeletePerhaps these tenders could carry modular weapons and sensors and be able to install these on suitable merchants when required too.
I would also like to see properly protected storerooms to replace electronic components when all the tech gets hit by an EMP pulse.
The newer AMDR radar is modular to make it scalable. Whether the modules are such that they can be easily replaced in the field, I have no idea.
DeleteServed on USS Puget Sound AD 38. 76-78. This ship was a floating machine shop. Very large and capable machine shops, as well as weapons repair shops. Also had 50 bed hospital and good dental facilities. We had two 60 ton centerline cranes and two 25 ton traveling cranes port and starboard. When deployed to the Med.we would also serve as flagship 6th Fleet. Engineering plant had large electrical generating capacity and could make over 200,000 gallons of fresh water daily. Was normal to have 6 ships tendered alongside. We would supply all electrical power,water and aux.steam so they could go cold iron and repair equipment. Also carried 4 LCMs for ship to ship or shore connectors.
ReplyDeleteSounds like a great ship!
DeleteAfter reading this topic, i wanted to learn more.. And after some reading, was horrified to learn that the Yellowstone class ADs (which a few friends served aboard) not only were taken out of service after less than 20yrs of use, but were scrapped or sink-exd...!!! So the Navy clearly has no intention of furthering the concept, and again threw away capable ships. It seems that the more I read and research, the more I find myself agreeing with CNO and his comments about ineptitude,ignorance, and negligence at the highest levels of the Navy Department. It personally pains me to see how poorly my Navy is being managed...
ReplyDeleteSamuel Gompers class were the AD replacements for Yellowstone class. Joined fleet late sixties early seventies. Good sized ships (20,000 ton). We had around a 1000 crew. All the class were retired and scrapped by early 2000s. Just a real waste of a valuable asset.
DeleteMinor correction - The Yellowstone came after the Gompers.
DeleteAlso interesting that the Gompers class was designed to be able to service nuclear or gas turbine ships.
DeleteMy typo, I was thinking about Yosemite class.
DeleteYou're still off a bit! The Yosemite was a single ship that was built in 1943 and served until 1994.
DeleteForgive my ignorance, but aren't Expeditionary Transfer Docks able to act as Motherships?
ReplyDeletehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expeditionary_Transfer_Dock
I remember earlier in the year there was an article stating they didn't know what to do with them. Maybe it could carry a dozen of those ASW modules the LCS was supposed to have. (they can work 6 hours at a time or something. Just carry a heap of them and cycle them every 6 hours. I know- it's a short range, but you work with what you've got.)
Andrew
" aren't Expeditionary Transfer Docks able to act as Motherships?"
DeleteTo some extent and for certain purposes and not well.
As a mothership for ASW or MCM they can be made to work but are not optimized for the roles.
As tenders (repair ships) they lack machine shops, cranes, parts storage, etc., as far as I know. To be fair, I've never seen a good description of what capabilities the ships have (or don't). I'm just basing my assessment of what I can see (or not) in photos.
The AFSB might be better suited for tender duties but, again, seems poorly suited for such a role.
As stated in the earlier post, the Navy seems to have no idea what to do with these ships beyond their use as an LCAC cargo transfer facility.