It’s also important to recognize that I don’t set out to
write critical posts. Instead, I analyze
a topic. The fact that the analysis so
often leads to criticism simply reflects the many bad decisions Navy leadership
makes. If the analysis proves positive,
I gladly say so. Sadly, the positive
results are few and far between.
I would also point out that other countries, friend and
enemy, experience the same problems or worse but we tend not focus on them,
mainly due to lack of information.
Unfortunately, all of this can lead to readers getting
discouraged and thinking that there’s nothing right about the Navy and that’s
not true. This post is an attempt to
offer some brief reminders of some of the positive developments that are taking
place. Not all will succeed and not all
are the best possible approach but all are positive steps. The list is not all-inclusive but represents
a sampling of some of the positive developments in the Navy. Enjoy the listing and feel good about these
developments.
LRASM – By all
accounts, this will be an effective long range anti-ship weapon and provide a
much needed improvement over the venerable Harpoon. I’d like to have seen this be a supersonic
weapon but this is still a large, positive step forward. Assuming it can be successfully adapted to
the VLS – and there’s no reason to think it can’t – this will provide surface
ships with a powerful anti-ship weapon.
Naval Strike Missile
– This provides a much needed, basic, shorter range, anti-ship weapon and gives
the LCS some minimal capability, at long last, although targeting remains an
issue.
Upgraded Tomahawk
– Supposedly, the Navy is planning to upgrade its Tomahawk inventory to Block V
standards which includes improved guidance and extended range. Additionally, an anti-ship version is planned
although one wonders whether this will materialize given the Navy’s commitment
to the LRASM.
Submarine Shortfall
– While the submarine shortfall – estimated to drop the sub fleet to around 40
at the low point – has been known for decades and the Navy has both allowed it
and failed to take any action to mitigate it (and have, in fact, early retired
Los Angeles class subs despite the looming shortfall), the Navy is finally
waking up and is attempting to increase submarine production. Unfortunately, submarine manufacturing
capacity is just about max’ed out so this may produce only minor
improvements. Still, the Navy is at
least trying.
Frigate – While readers
know that ComNavOps does not believe a frigate is needed, it still represents a
vast improvement over the LCS and whatever forsaken unmanned vessels the Navy
is going to come up with. This should,
at least, provide a combat capable ship for the fleet and help maintain combat
capable ship numbers.
AGS – While the
Zumwalt Advanced Gun System (AGS) was an unabashed fiasco, I consider it a
positive sign that the Navy cancelled the program instead of riding it all the way
down the funding sinkhole, as they have so many other programs. The money saved can be spent on other,
hopefully better, programs. This is a
rare and welcome sign of some degree of fiscal responsibility.
Unmanned Tanker –
Assuming the Navy can get it to work, this should free up Hornets to do what they’re
intended to do which is combat. This not
only saves wear on the Hornet airframes but effectively increases the number of
combat-available aircraft in the air wing.
Drydocks and
Shipyards – Yes, the drydocks and public shipyards are in pitiful shape and
that’s a crime on Navy leadership that is unforgivable. However, the Navy, with a good deal of
prodding from Congress, has at last begun to pay some attention to our public
shipyards and drydocks and begun funding upgrades, maintenance, and new facilities. The funding should be much more than it is
but it’s at least a positive step.
I get lots of email and communications from active duty
personnel of all ranks so I know the blog is being read by the Navy and, as a
result, I firmly believe that this blog and its readers have had a positive
influence on the Navy. It’s our job to
keep hammering out the ‘right’ message to the Navy. The victories will be small and hard to see
but they’re there! In the meantime,
let’s recognize the positive developments and enjoy them! Feel free to chime in and add your own
examples of positive developments.
The headline about three carriers operating in the Pacific simultaneously in the Pacific was encouraging. Although they were NOT operating together. Although they were NOT doing any realistic wargaming or anything 'Fleet-problem-esque'. Although they were severly unescorted (ok im just assuming that but). Although they... Ok, Ill just be encouraged that there are three underway at the same time in the same theatre. Its somthing, even if the time, effort, and expense is largely wasted.
ReplyDelete"The headline about three carriers operating in the Pacific simultaneously in the Pacific was encouraging."
DeleteWhile technically true, the carriers are nowhere near each other, as you noted. Nimitz is off the west coast of the US - hardly a case of 'operating' in the Pacific. Reagan left port in Japan. Truman is east of the Philippines. None of that is exactly contesting Chinese expansion or sending any message except that we'll meekly stay out of China's way.
I've been trying to find more info on the carriers escorts and what's surrounding them, not much info. I've heard some grumblings on my feed too that they don't have their regular escorts....no clue if true or not. SO much noise out there, it's tough to figure out what's real or fake news.
DeleteA negative
ReplyDeleteAn aside, looked at FY2021, was surprised at the low proportion of budget spent on surface ship combatants ~20% of the total Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy in FY2021. (Senate proposed FY2021 NDAA budget for SCN $21.3 billion, $1.4 billion over and above President's request of $19.9 billion)
DOD request for surface ship combatants in FY2021 is $4,2 billion vs FY2020 funding of $7.3 billion a ~70% reduction, the Senate proposal adds an additional $260 M for additional long lead time material for Burkes. (FY2021 two Burkes and one FFG vs FY2020 three Burkes one FFG)
The Fords and the new SSBNs are going to price the Navy out of existence. The SSSBNs are essential. For the price of 2 Fords ($28B, being nice), you could build a Nimitz ($9B), a Kitty Hawk ($6B), a larger Ticonderoga replacement with 8-inch guns ($4B), 2 AAW destroyers like Burkes ($1.8B each, $3.6B total), 3 GP escorts like mini-Burkes ($1.2B each, $3.6B total), and 4 ASW frigates ($0.5B each, $2B total). Which would you rather have?
DeleteSpeaking of a Tico replacement, do either of you know why the USN doesn't just copy the Korean Sejong the Great?
DeleteAndrew
In 2018 CNO Adm Richardson called for LSC contract award in 2023 with delivery ASAP - Richardson retired Aug 2019.
DeleteNow LSC kicked into the long grass, USNI news March 17, 2020 "Vice Adm. Jim Kilby, the deputy chief of naval operations for warfighting requirements and capabilities (OPNAV N9), said that detailed design work on LSC would take place in 2028", if no further slips expect first LSC IOC in perhaps twenty years? (FFG contract awarded recently and Navy expect first ship operational 2030).
China's Dalian shipyard getting ready to launch the eighth new LSC Type 055 Renhai class 12,000/13,000t with its 112 VLS cells, first of class was launched three years ago, commissioned and now active, Chinese achieving 2.7 launches per years.
With Navy now expect future is USVs, thou Congress doesn't seem all that enthused. All will be revealed when Navy releases its now late (in law) Future Force Structure Requirements to Congress and their response.
"why the USN doesn't just copy the Korean Sejong the Great?"
DeleteThe Navy has already stated that the Tico replacement will likely be a 'family of distributed, smaller vessels'. So, that's why the Navy won't copy it.
I wouldn't copy it because it's just an enlarged Burke and that's a poor design for the cruiser/AAW role.
My thought has been to build a real cruiser. Something along the lines of a Des Moines class hull, 715 feet, 17,500-20,000 tons. I have thought about maybe a somewhat bigger version of the proposed WWII flight deck cruiser. See a drawing at:
Deletehttps://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cb/Flight_deck_cruiser_design_CF-2_31_Jan_1940.jpg
With a bigger ship, put 8-inch triple mounts fore and aft. On the 01 level forward and aft of the flight deck, put about 192 VLS cells (96 fwd, 96 aft). The 02 level would be the flight deck for helos and UAVs. The area below the flight deck could be hangar space and you could also launch UUVs and USVs over the side from the hangar deck. Give is AEGIS/AMDR and make it the AAW control ship for a task force, backed up by AAW destroyers (Burke or equivalent). Secondary mission would be NGFS for amphibious landings with the 8-inch mounts. And it could use unmanned vehicles to complement its mission areas.
You forgot to include ballast tanks so it could submerge!
DeleteYes, it would be kind of a jack of all trades. But I think it's big enough to handle them. Certainly the 8-inch mounts fore and aft, and the missiles, and the AEGIS/AMDR. Whether the unmanned vehicle area would work or not, or detract too much from the other areas, would be a legitimate question. But I think a Des Moines hull would be big enough to give it a try.
DeleteI mean, the Navy wants unmanned vehicles somewhere. I'd rather have smaller ones that deploy from a ship that can actually do something, than just send a bunch of bigger ones out there to be basically targets. And I could see where used in conjunction with a big ship that could actually do something, unmanned vehicles might actually be useful.
Delete"Yes, it would be kind of a jack of all trades."
DeleteHave you thought about a CONOPS? You seem to want a ship that will do everything - win a war single-handed. This is where we get gazillion dollar ships from.
You're going to combine a Burke, a semi-battleship, and a carrier. Don't you think that will be just a tad expensive?
It’s a Burke plus a gun cruiser, but not really a carrier. I think you need a bigger hull to work with the 8-inch guns, and once you have that space, I’m trying to get creative. With the Navy going so heavily into unmanned vehicles, it needs something to carry/control them, and a ship with some military capability makes more sense to me than an UAV/USV/UUV support ship that brings nothing else to the table.
DeleteYes, it would be a tad expensive, but it would also be a tad (or more) capable. And it's basically taking existing (or near-existing) technologies—the Des Moines hull is known, 8-inch guns are known and cheap, the missiles are expensive but the VLS technology is existing, and the Navy is well into UAVs, USVs, and UUVs—so the huge front end R&D costs for something like a Ford can largely be skirted, if the Navy has the discipline to do it (realizing that is questionable). Where the Navy gets in trouble is blowing billions on untested technology that doesn’t work. This is a different approach—taking things that work and combining them.
My biggest concern would not be cost, but whether the different elements can be combined operationally into one platform. Just thinking about what CIC would have to look like, to maintain the air picture, the NGFS picture and the UAV/USV/UUV picture, is pretty daunting. There’s clearly not room for all that with a Burke or Tico sized hull, which is why I went up to Des Moines.
I'm also not sure about propulsion. Steam requires too many snipes (stokers for our Brit friends). The Makin Island hybrid plant drives a 40,000T boxy hull through the water at 28 knots, and is pretty economical at cruising speeds. I would guess it could get a 20,000T cruiser hull up into the mid-30s, so I’d tend to go that way if it’s not too big to fit.
As far as CONOPS, I'm basically taking your Independent Cruiser concept and turning into something that truly could operate independently. I don’t know whether I would put a sonar on it or not—we don’t want it chasing subs, but it could be beneficial to have an idea of what’s out there. I see it as lead ship and AAW coordinator for a squadron that would include 2 AAW destroyers (could be Burkes), 3 GP escorts (something like FFG(X)), and 4 ASW frigates (basically your ASW frigate). The squadron could escort high-value units or conduct independent operations. One question I have is when it goes into the NGFS mode could it retain the AAW coordinator role or would it pass it off to one of the AAW destroyers.
"Where the Navy gets in trouble is blowing billions on untested technology that doesn’t work."
DeleteThat's partly true but their bigger problem is building ships without CONOPS. The lack of CONOPS is why they then pursue non-existent technolog - in the hope that it will prove useful.
You're falling into the same trap. You even kind of acknowledge it with your last sentence,
"One question I have is when it goes into the NGFS mode could it retain the AAW coordinator role or would it pass it off to one of the AAW destroyers."
This shows you haven't thought out a solid CONOPS. Instead, you've got a collection of technologies in a single ship.
For example, you've envisioned this ship as a AAW command ship. Well, what's the role (and location!) of an AAW command ship? It's to stay at the center of the group, never moving, and exercising command and coordination of the group's AAW. When would 8" guns ever be useful in that role? Never! If an enemy has penetrated the group's defenses to the point of being within 8" gun range, you've already lost and lost badly! Having a few 8" guns won't change the outcome and certainly not enough to justify the cost of installing and operating the guns. Similarly, when would the central AAW command and control ship for an entire group leave its position and go off shooting shore support and risk being sunk? Never!
Pick a mission/role and stick with it. Don't try to be and do every mission with one ship. THAT'S what the Navy consistently does wrong.
We already had this ship. It was the old Lexington and Saratoga. They had the big guns but it was eventually realized that the guns were useless and just taking space away from the carrier's real function. If an enemy penetrated the carrier's escorts and own aircraft to within gun range, the carriers were forfeit with or without guns.
Pick a mission, develop a CONOPS, and stick with it.
Again, to address your last sentence, you build a dedicated AAW command ship and leave it where it belongs. You also, with the savings, build a dedicated gun support ship and let it go support. Two ships, able to do both functions and be in both places at the same time - not one ship that's hideously expensive and has to pick between roles, leaving at least one of the roles unfilled.
This almost sums up the entire blog! Pick a single function and do it well.
So in the current environment the Navy would build the dedicated AAW command ship, but never get around to the gun cruiser. The problem is sailors, and the Navy is not going to find manpower to crew a gun-only ship. We have nothing bigger than 5-inch on any ship in the fleet right now, and we are getting rid of the 5-inchers. Pretty soon we'll be down to 57mm popguns. I don't think we're going to get big guns back in the Navy without putting them on a ship that can do something else. The headcount numbers just don't work.
DeleteI think you can put the big guns on the AAW command ship. It's going to have a pretty big problem with shore-based enemy air if it goes in to do an NGFS mission, so a strong AAW capability wouldn't be wasted. You’ve written about 8-inch guns on major combatants at
https://navy-matters.blogspot.com/2013/03/naval-guns.html.
That’s what started me thinking about the idea.
It's the UAV/USV/UUV part that I'm not sure about. It's a big enough ship to have room. You don't need that huge a flight deck, and the space underneath the flight deck can be a staging deck for all the unmanned units. I could actually see the unmanned vehicles complementing the AAW and NGFS missions. And again, I'd rather have the unmanned vehicles scouting for a mother ship that could put the enemy away than trying to be weapons platforms too.
I'm just looking at problems:
1) We don't have a big gun ship, and very little likelihood of getting one any time soon; about the only way I can see to do it is to enlarge the Ticos and then they can mount 8-inchers.
2) The Navy wants to go in big on unmanned systems. Like you, I think they have limitations, particularly as stand-alone combat platforms. But as eyes and ears for a ship that packs some firepower, that seems to me to be a different ball game.
"The problem is sailors, and the Navy is not going to find manpower to crew a gun-only ship."
DeleteOh come on, now, we fully manned a 600 ship fleet in the Reagan era. We can man a 280 ship fleet now. I've posted on exactly how to do this.
Any manning problem that the Navy claims to have is purely self-inflicted and can be easily self-corrected. I went through this in recent posts.
Some day, we're going to have a single ship in the entire Navy and it will have a crew of 12 and the Navy will still complain that they can't afford to man it. The proof will be presented in holographic Powerpoint presentations developed by the four million man land staff of the Admirals.
DeleteSeriously, I've presented tables of data and reams of evidence. If you want to say that the Navy is too stupid to figure out how to man a ship, that's find, but don't say it can't be done. We've already done it at twice the level we need today and with a smaller population supporting the military personnel needs.
Eliminate a hundred admirals, each with a staff of, say 20, and there's 2000 extra crew right there. Of course we can man ships.
Don't fall into the Navy's pit of stupidity!
And I've gone through the same thing using CBO numbers. CBO says the Navy and Marine Corps (combined, they don't break them out) have 210,000 active duty members in combat positions, 93,000 in combat support positions, and 202,000 in admin/overhead positions, out of 505,000 total head count. That's about 325,000 Navy and 180,000 Marines.
DeleteCut the admin/overhead in half (there go your excess admirals and staffs, among others), add 34,000 to combat and 17,000 to combat support (Navy/Marine breakdown is about 22,000/12,000 combat and 11,000/6,000 combat support) and you can still reduce active duty strength by 50,000. Then double the reserve forces from 97,000 to 194,000, and you gain a net 47,000 end strength for less money. Reserves get paid for 60 days/year, so 1 reservist is about 1/6 of one full time equivalent (FTE) for pay purposes. Current is 505,000 active plus 16,000 reserve FTEs or 521,000 FTEs. Revised would be 455,000 active plus 33,000 reserve FTEs, or 488,000 FTEs. Savings of about 33,000 FTEs, or about a 6% reduction in manpower costs, with 22,000 more sailors on warships and 11,000 more in combat support.
I think the Navy said they were 6,000 sailors short last year, I just found them 3 to 4 times that many.
Look, I'm in total agreement with you that we are way too far down the road to too few, too expensive, and too lightly manned ships. That's the problem I'm trying to address. I think we need some top-end, multipurpose ships for certain missions, and we need to fill out the balance with cheaper single-purpose ships with proved rather than cutting-edge, state-of-the-art (and unproved) technology. If we go all single purpose, we're going to end up with ASW ships facing an air threat or AAW ships facing a sub threat, so it seems to me that we need some generalists and some specialist.
You responded to a slightly different problem from the one I am addressing. I'm not saying the Navy can't find the bodies, or that they don't exist. I've already found where they are. I'm saying that putting those bodies on a gun-only ship as opposed to other types is going to be a hard sell.
DeleteI posted earlier about building two Fords for, let's say $14B each, or $28B. For roughly the same money we could build a Nimitz ($9B), a Kitty Hawk ($6B), a cruiser ($4B), 2 AAW destroyers ($1.8B each, or $3.6B total), 3 GP frigates like FFG(X) or similar ($1.2B each, or $3.6B total), and 4 ASW frigates, basically your ASW frigate ($0.5B each, or $2B total). That's $28.2B total. So which would you rather have? The Navy says 2 Fords. I say the Nimitz/Kitty Hawk CAG plus a fair number of escorts.
Celestial navigation is once again being taught to Navy officers. They restarted training in 2016, so not really a new development. They are also working on developing automated celestial navigation as a back up to GPS.
ReplyDeleteThe U.S. Navy needs to become the finest fighting force on the planet, and I say that as an army veteran.
ReplyDeleteDuring the cold war, the primary location of potential conflict was a ground fight in Europe against the Warsaw Pact.
That was the army's fight and the navy played a supporting role.
Now the primary location for potential combat is the Western Pacific.
That is the navy's fight, and they need to be ready for it.
We are in Cold War II. And this time the enemy is China.
DeleteThat is true, whether we like it or not. And so far, we don't seem to have a clue how to respond.
ESSM-ER is being discussed and that's another great step forward.
ReplyDeleteI like ESSM (assuming it works!) but an extended range version is not really useful. As I've described in posts, most engagements will occur from the horizon, in. That being the case, there is no need for an ESSM-ER. Besides, we already have it in the form of the Standard family.
DeleteIf most engagements occur from the horizon in, then the Zumwalt being an ESSM barge is a good thing. Slice off the parts of the 155mm guns above the deck, and ideally, the USN would reach out to Italy for deck mounting a heap of 76mm guns fore and aft, bolt deck mounted Harpoons (it's all the USN really has at the moment- no NSM, LRASM's ), bolt several Millenium guns, Goalkeepers, Phalanx's (different systems, we don't know work in war). If Strales can be installed for the 76mm guns, add that too.
DeleteThe USN hinders itself by not using Leonardo guns, imho. Even Australia is going to buy a dozen 40mm Leonardo guns for it's OPV's.
Andrew
"Zumwalt being an ESSM barge is a good thing."
DeleteZumwalt can't guide ESSM so there's that problem. That aside, yes, an ESSM barge is fine although for $9B each, that's an awfully expensive barge!
"a heap of 76mm guns ... deck mounted Harpoons … several Millenium guns, Goalkeepers, Phalanx's"
There goes the stealth signature! Stealth aside, 76mm guns are not terribly useful in high end combat.
"LRASM - ...I’d like to have seen this be a supersonic weapon but this is still a large, positive step forward."
ReplyDelete"Naval Strike Missile – This provides a much needed, basic, shorter range, anti-ship weapon and gives the LCS some minimal capability, at long last, although targeting remains an issue."
@ComNavOps: Wrt to LRASM, I see it's nature of being a subsonic missile as a legacy of the subsonic ALCM it was derived from - the USAF has overall tended to prefer subsonic ALCMs more than supersonic ALCMs - and pre-existing NATO doctrine with antiship missiles. With regard to NSM, a lighter weight missile that can be deck-mounted to all sorts of platforms - LCS, FFG(X), DDG - is of course a benefit, but I think it's more interesting to observe in the sense that it gives Raytheon another leg up to get the variant JSM missile into NAVAIR's inventory as a Harpoon replacement. The relatively shorter range of NSM and targeting challenge becomes less pronounced if it's being employed as an air-launched weapon.
It will be interesting to observe the Japanese experience - Japan has committed to being the first customer for JSM, so they'll get to experience the early adopter woes - as well as Japan's VLS-launched hypersonic antiship missile development program. Currently the main US focus on hypersonic missiles is the USAF's Hacksaw and Arrow programs, which are optimised for the USAF's needs as bomber weapons; given how tight the Navy budget is, I'd opine that it only makes sense to look at what allies are doing and piggyback off that.