The USS Ronald Reagan carrier strike group (CSG) is now operating in the South China Sea, according to Navy reports.(1)
China considers the South China Sea to be their property and has threatened the US Navy on many occasions and has, in the past, seized US aircraft and unmanned assets. If there’s a high risk operating area in the world for the US Navy, the South China Sea would be it. Therefore, if we’re going to operate a CGS within easy range of the entire Chinese military, it’s only prudent to send a massive carrier strike group. Here’s a list of the many ships of the Reagan CSG:
USS Ronald Reagan (Nimitz class)
USS Shiloh (Ticonderoga class)
USS Halsey (Burke class)
A carrier with two escorts operating in the highest risk area in the world ... do I need to say anything else?
_________________________________
Not really surprising, last couple of years, really, everytime USN shows a picture of a CSG, sure looks like it keeps shrinking in size....another year or 2, you'll just see a DDG, who knows, maybe 1 day it will just be a FFGX!
ReplyDeleteYou know we won't fight this way in war so why are we practicing this way in peace? Fight like train, train like you fight.
Delete… he asked rhetorically.
Someone in accounting did a cost benefits analysis....
DeleteEvery year it just gets worse and worse.
Well at least we still have all that fire power on the Carrier!....oh wait.
Is this a carrier strike group? No, of course not.
ReplyDeleteComNavOps, you and I have fought back and forth about fleet composition, but without revisiting our differences, we totally agree that this is nowhere close to a viable carrier strike group.
What are the odds that China provokes some sort of incident?
"What are the odds that China provokes some sort of incident?"
DeleteWrong question. China is CONSTANTLY provoking incidents. The real question is when, if ever, will we respond?
Train like you fight, fight like you train. What is a 3-ship CSG accomplishing?
Good question!!!
DeleteWhat are all these FONOPS and this CSG accomplishing? Presence? Provocation? Photo op?Or just sailing around the world because that's what the Navy does? What's being accomplished here and forwards America's interest and defense?
Would be nice if someone,anyone in Congress would ask that question.....
"Wrong question. China is CONSTANTLY provoking incidents. The real question is when, if ever, will we respond?
DeleteTrain like you fight, fight like you train. What is a 3-ship CSG accomplishing?"
Of course, if we sent a proper force on an operation like this, China would almost certainly be less inclined to tempt fate, and the whole question becomes moot. Send a 3-ship "strike group" that they can mess with, and they very likely will. Send 10-12 or more ships, and all of a sudden it is a less appealing possibility.
Or recognize that it serves no useful purpose, and don't send any.
Hey, at least both the carrier and the escorts for that "group" are functional, powerful ships.
ReplyDeleteIt could have been a Ford-class paperweight and a couple of LSCs or drone boats.
Please don't tempt fate, or give the Pentagon's penny-pinchers and "Transformationists" (those forcing the Navy to waste money and other resources on unmanned ships, and the LCS before them) an excuse to do just that.
DeleteGod, you know one day Ford will be out...hopefully. It will spectacular to watch it in formation with a LCS and a Zumwalt!!! LOL! Wonder if USN will make that happen or somebody will have enough common sense to avoid that photo op!!!!
DeleteIf you're going to have ships sunk, it's best to have useless ships sunk. Of course if the Chinese are smart they'll wait to sink ships that can actually do something.
Delete2024 carrier strike group--
ReplyDeleteCarrier. The crew has been at sea for 11 months straight, touching once to take on some crates.
Two Powhatan class tugs, each pulling an LCS, one with a cobbled together ASW package, one with a Marine JLTV chained on deck with some NSMs.
Both LCSes have army generators on the back providing power.
Joint operations!
Don't forget the unlucky Air Force "airpersons" (using a gender-neutral term in place of "airmen") shoehorned aboard the carrier, serving as living ballast (the Marine F-35Bs being the only fixed wing planes flying, as the electromagnetic catapults don't work).
DeleteWell, on the bright side...at least they're not giving away any intel to the Chinese of what an actual CSG would look like.
ReplyDeleteAnd they've got the aircraft carriers, AAW escorts, and ASW escorts all represented.
Lutefisk
Slightly off topic, but I like the idea of having surface battle groups to assume some of the tasks that a carrier strike group would do, even in the South China Sea.
ReplyDeleteI think the gun-ships should be what these would be built around: -heavy cruisers built closely around the Des Moines class
-battle cruisers loosely based on the Alaska class (40k tons and 3x3 12" guns)
-and refurbished Iowas.
Escorted by AAW cruisers built on a Cleveland sized hull, supported in AAW by the Burkes.
Primary blue-water ASW on a purpose-built frigate of about 5k to 6k tons and also supported by the Burkes in ASW.
Possibly ASW would be augmented by purpose built blue-water corvettes that would normally be used for convoy type escort, and also maybe brown-water ASW corvettes for the littoral areas.
All ships sporting various levels of armor and bristling with CIWS.
Scouting performed by CNO's 'low cost' drones. (Maybe a drone carrier based on the Cleveland class hull, with armor and again bristling with CIWS).
I'd be interested to see how those types of battle groups would fare in a peer fight.
Lutefisk
"I'd be interested to see how those types of battle groups would fare in a peer fight."
DeleteAs the saying goes, "air superiority is not a luxury".
Then again, it should not be taken for granted either.
"I think the gun-ships should be what these would be built around: -heavy cruisers built closely around the Des Moines class
Delete"-battle cruisers loosely based on the Alaska class (40k tons and 3x3 12" guns)
"-and refurbished Iowas.
"Escorted by AAW cruisers built on a Cleveland sized hull..."
You're asking for ships built upon hulls that haven't been built in DECADES, armed with weapons that haven't been used in DECADES, all made in factories that closed down DECADES ago.
Shouldn't you also ask to revive the industries that built and maintain the necessary hulls, propulsion systems for those hulls, large caliber guns and their ammunition, as well as the STEM education to sustain these industries? Without them, you're doing worse than putting the cart before the horse, you're trying to propel the cart WITHOUT a horse!
"You're asking for ships built upon hulls that haven't been built in DECADES, armed with weapons that haven't been used in DECADES, all made in factories that closed down DECADES ago.
DeleteShouldn't you also ask to revive the industries that built and maintain the necessary hulls, propulsion systems for those hulls, large caliber guns and their ammunition, as well as the STEM education to sustain these industries? Without them, you're doing worse than putting the cart before the horse, you're trying to propel the cart WITHOUT a horse!"
Is there a question in there somewhere?
You build them. This isn't complicated.
If you don't have the ability, how else would you obtain it than by doing it?
Lutefisk
The factories will have to be government-owned, as the products- large caliber guns and their ammunition- cater to too niche a market to support profit margins that will attract the private sector. That means you have to convince Congress to fund their construction and maintenance. And will large caliber guns be competitive against long-range missiles- not only on the battlefield, but in rooms where bureaucrats determine the budgets for Department of Defense research, acquisition, maintenance and sustainment?
DeleteIt's more complicated than you think. If you fail to acknowledge this, the Transformationists will outmaneuvered you.
"You're asking for ships built upon hulls that haven't been built in DECADES, armed with weapons that haven't been used in DECADES, all made in factories that closed down DECADES ago."
DeleteThis is one of my major pet peeves about naval observers/commentators. Without taking any position on the desirability of building the mentioned assets, I'll simply address the feasibility.
So many people use the argument that we can't do something because it hasn't been done in decades. This is absolute bilgewater! Before we built the Zumwalt, it hadn't been built … ever. Before we built the Ford, it hadn't been built … ever. Before we built the Predator drone, it hadn't been built … ever. Do I need to keep going?
That something hasn't been built in a while just means we have to rebuild the capacity to do so WITH THE ADVANTAGE OF HAVING DONE IT BEFORE AND, THEREFORE, HAVING INSTITUTIONAL KNOWLEDGE ABOUT HOW TO GO ABOUT IT!
Similarly, so many people seem to think that because a factory has shut down, a new version can't be built ever again. We build new factories all the time. Do I need to present a list?
If there is sufficient need and justification, we can easily build any factory or capability, ESPECIALLY ONE THAT WE'VE BUILT IN THE PAST AND, THEREFORE, KNOW EXACTLY HOW TO DO!
Fixed mindset vs. growth mindset.
DeleteLutefisk
"And will large caliber guns be competitive against long-range missiles"
DeleteThis betrays a failure to understand the role of missiles and large caliber guns. THEY ARE NOT THE SAME! They perform different tasks so comparing them is irrelevant.
" large caliber guns and their ammunition- cater to too niche a market to support profit margins that will attract the private sector."
DeleteThis is incorrect. Dahlgren, Bethlehem Steel, DC Navy Yard, and others have historically developed, produced, and worked with large caliber naval guns for a limited market. 16" guns have never been a high volume business and yet the manufacturers found it worthwhile.
It's a simple matter of economics. If the Navy is willing to pay what the manufacturer would charge, then the manufacturer will build large caliber guns.
Isn't Dahlgren under the US Navy's direct ownership?
DeleteThe problem isn't just building a factory, it's KEEPING IT OPEN, i.e., sustainment- historically a very real problem with the defense industry. For example, the US has an air dominance fighter in the F-22, but it decided it didn't need more air dominance fighters than the 187 already built, and let Lockheed Martin close the production line; then China test flew its own air dominance fighter, the J-20. The US Air Force could've rebuilt the F-22 production line, but it didn't want to pay the costs of doing so, and is instead retiring the F-22 decades ahead of schedule, due to rising maintenance costs- costs it could've avoided if the factories building replacement parts for the F-22, remained open.
Yes, we can build factories for new 16" guns and shells, but will we keep them open? Will we buy the weapons and their ammo in sufficient quantities to keep using them in a high-intensity war? Or will we buy a few for a new battlship and then shutdown the production line, meaning the battleship will quickly run out of ammo and then become useless?
I've proposed the US government needs to either subsidize factories producing replacement parts necessary to maintain its weapon systems, or outright own these factories; that will hopefully prevent private owners from shutting down the factories for lack of profit. That will require convincing Congress to provide the necessary funds to maintain those factories. Lutefisk did NOT propose any viable solutions to the questions, "How do we get new battleships? How do we keep these battleships in serviceable condition?"
"Lutefisk did NOT propose any viable solutions to the questions, "How do we get new battleships? How do we keep these battleships in serviceable condition?"
DeleteI feel like goalposts are shifting here.
Lutefisk
The goalposts never moved. I wrote, "Shouldn't you also ask to revive the industries that built and maintain the necessary hulls, propulsion systems for those hulls, large caliber guns and their ammunition, as well as the STEM education to sustain these industries?" You didn't bother to answer that.
Delete"Yes, we can build factories for new 16" guns and shells, but will we keep them open?"
DeleteIf we continue to keep building large caliber naval gun ships then yes. If we fail to learn the lessons of, say, the F-22 (as you point out) then possibly not.
"How do we get new battleships? How do we keep these battleships in serviceable condition?"
Is this a trick question? We get new ships be re-evaluating our force structure and making the decision that gun ships have something to offer.
We keep them in serviceable condition the same we're supposed to keep every ship in serviceable condition: by having a comprehensive, lifetime maintenance plan. Again, is this a trick question?
There's no magic, here. It's just about the Navy making correct force structure decisions. Thus far, the Navy is making extremely poor decisions (LCS, Zumwalt, Ford, etc.). For the money we've thrown down the drain on these disasters, we could have easily reconstituted gun ships.
Again, I'm neither agreeing nor disagreeing, just pointing out that the 'we haven't done it in a while' argument is invalid.
Big ships doesn't necessarily get us more things we need at costs we can afford to ask for. This year we not only buy 1 DDG and 1 FFG. We also get 1 RAM launcher and 1 Mk 45 for instance. If we were buying Korean Incheons We could get 8 per year for each DDG and get the RAM, CIWS, Mk 45 all in qty and secure the industrial base and pricing. At 16 ASMs per hull you'd bring the entire LCS fleet potential of ASMs to the fleet in 2 years.
Delete"The goalposts never moved. I wrote, "Shouldn't you also ask to revive the industries that built and maintain the necessary hulls, propulsion systems for those hulls, large caliber guns and their ammunition, as well as the STEM education to sustain these industries?" You didn't bother to answer that."
DeleteWell, then your comment is nonsense.
This is not a command economy.
The navy or the government do not 'revive' industries or education programs prior to the need.
The navy puts out a contract for the ships. Industry then hires the people they need to accomplish the job. That pulls people into the profession.
How on earth do you expect to have that happen in the reverse order?
Put a gun to kids' heads and tell them that they need to go into STEM fields because there will be 'jobs in the future'?
Lutefisk
"This is not a command economy."
DeleteWith the difficulties the US military has in keeping its weapons systems functional, due to its failure to incentivize industries to keep in production replacements and replacement parts? It is now required. The US government needs to subsidize (if not outright own) the factories producing the necessary components- including the 16" guns and shells you want to mount aboard your proposed battleships- or those weapons systems will quickly become useless due to peacetime maintenance issues, to say nothing of wartime attrition.
"As the saying goes, "air superiority is not a luxury".
ReplyDeleteThen again, it should not be taken for granted either."
Would love to have air superiority...but what specifically would it do?
I would assume that attacks would come from missiles (or submarines).
If the missiles are aircraft launched, then the CAP might keep them out of range.
If the missiles are ship or land based, then the aircraft might prevent targeting data.
Those are valuable things, but is it enough that you can't send a battle group in without it?
I don't know the answer to that.
But keep in mind that the surface battle group I am talking about wouldn't be asked to sail up to Hainan and drop anchor.
They would likely be fighting along the periphery of the SCS until Chinese firepower is rolled back or attrited.
And they wouldn't be operating in a vacuum. They'd be part of a navy-wide approach in which there would be other battle groups as well.
Lutefisk
You can fight without AS, if you're willing to accept the risk, but the USA hasn't done that since the early forties and there is little in the current Navy that would be useful for such a situation, except for the admittedly important AAW escorts.
DeleteThat said, it depends on the kind of "fighting" you're envisioning.
For land attack and the like, heavy guns are devastating but that's not exactly a peripheral fight.
For ASuW, modern ships would get absolutely destroyed by big calibers but range is a major issue.
Rather than bringing back the Iowas (those ladies were born in the forties, let them be), I'd love to see some prototypes for a modern BB or CA designed from scratch and built in small numbers.
Of course they would cost $20B each or something if they put the Zumwalt people in charge of it, but the USN would greatly benefit from some creative prototyping and realistic testing.
"You can fight without AS"
DeleteOne of the realities of a war with China is that we'll be forced to fight without aerial supremacy in many situations. This is due to geography, basing distances, and other factors. I've addressed this in the following post: "The Unfriendly Skies"
I've also described an independent cruiser that is intended to fight without aerial supremacy: "Independent Cruiser"
A few people in Navy leadership have also voiced the need to consider fighting under skies we don't control. To date, though, no one has done anything about it. One of many failings of our current Navy's 'preparation' for war.
"One of the realities of a war with China is that we'll be forced to fight without aerial supremacy in many situations."
DeleteAgreed, but not a big fan of that cruiser concept, sounds like it'd cost 75% of a "battleship" and offer half the capabilities.
Also, the USN badly needs a modern version of the Casablanca CVEs to fight China.
"the USN badly needs a modern version of the Casablanca CVEs to fight China."
DeleteWithout agreeing or disagreeing … why? What is your rationale/CONOPS? How do you see CVEs helping in a war with China?
"sounds like it'd cost 75% of a "battleship" and offer half the capabilities."
DeleteYou're obviously making an off the cuff cost assessment with nothing to back it up. I don't say that in a mean way, just pointing out the difference between an uninformed opinion and an informed one. Again, that sounds mean but it's not meant to be. Why don't you benchmark the costs, as best you can, and present them to us? You can use comparative sizes, for example, and historical costs of similar size vessels. I'd be very interested to see what you find.
"and offer half the capabilities."
DeleteA battleship and an independent cruiser serve two different roles (admittedly with some degree of overlap) so an assessment of 'half the capabilities' is meaningless.
"Without agreeing or disagreeing … why? What is your rationale/CONOPS? How do you see CVEs helping in a war with China?"
DeleteI don't actually think there will be a shooting war with China, but the Navy should still be preparing for it.
That said, it is immediate that the US will have very few useful bases close to the zones of operation, which will heavily reduce Air Force contribution, at least for a good while.
Thus, the need for more naval air power.
Now, the US has less than a dozen carriers, all of which are expensive CVNs that take forever to build and cost a lot.
Even ignoring the Ford fiasco, just replacing losses would be complicated under that paradigm, to say nothing of actually building enough ships to win.
What is needed is a cheap, expendable (well, as expendable as a carrier can be) CVE that can be built fast, in large numbers and provide severely needed air power to the zones of operation.
Of course a carrier exists for her planes, so this would pointless unless a "good enough" naval fighter fit for mass production is also designed.
"A battleship and an independent cruiser serve two different roles (admittedly with some degree of overlap) so an assessment of 'half the capabilities' is meaningless."
DeleteLooking at the "Independent cruiser" again, she seems overspec'd for peacetime roles and a poor man's battleship in wartime.
"Of course a carrier exists for her planes, so this would pointless unless a "good enough" naval fighter fit for mass production is also designed."
DeleteWell, that's the heart of the matter! How many aircraft and of what types do you see on a CVE?
I'd say around thirty, more if possible without size/cost ballooning.
DeleteAll fighters, leave the rest on the standard carriers.
"I'd say around thirty"
DeleteAre you talking about conventional aircraft which require cats and arresting gear (price increase!) or STOVL/F-35B which have limited range and payload?
CVEs have significant drawbacks and limitations as do their air wings. Thus, you need a CONOPS to describe how they contribute to a shooting war with China.
STOVL is a gimmick, as far as I'm concerned.
DeleteWhat I'm talking about is a way to add air power to a carrier group for cheap, among other things, but it has to be useful air power, not crippled planes.
"What I'm talking about is a way to add air power to a carrier group for cheap,"
DeleteOnce you start adding catapults (EMALS?), arresting gear, etc., that 'cheap' CVE quickly becomes very expensive. To paraphrase your own comment,
"sounds like it'd cost 75% of a Nimitz and offer half the capabilities!"
I'm aware of that risk, but you'd need the Zumwalt people to make a CVE cost 75% of a Nimitz.
DeleteThis would have a single steam catapult and be significantly smaller than a CVN (no 1000ft mammoth), exactly because when one starts adding too much stuff things never end well.
"(no 1000ft mammoth)"
DeleteWell, you say that but …
A catapult would be have to be the same length as a Nimitz catapult in order to safely get a modern aircraft aloft and the angled deck landing area would also be the same size as a Nimitz in order to safely arrest a modern aircraft. I'm not sure where you'd be able to eliminate much size, if any. That makes the CVE just about the same size as a Nimitz!
Unless you're going to go the F-35B ski jump route, you're pretty much tied in to a pretty big carrier and even the British QE ski jump carrier is 920 ft long!
A CVE may be a whole lot harder to pull off than you think!
I would rather just concentrate on Nimitz mark 2s. A carrier battle group is 4, so 16 total is a good start.
DeleteHere's a CONOPS for CVE's in a China contingency. Although not quite what Lonfo has in mind.
DeleteSuppose instead of adding a marginal capability to a carrier battle group in the hot battle zone, we instead stock the CVE with anti-submarine helicopters and use it to escort merchant vessels in lower (but not zero) risk areas. In most of the Pacific between North America and the first Island chain, the merchant ships are out of range of the vast majority of Chinese land-based air (except for the occasional long range bomber) but they are still vulnerable to submarines. Use the helicopters to protect the merchant vessels from the submarines.
Some possible variations:
(1) Do what the British did with some of their CVE's in World War II, and make it an actual cargo ship (or tanker) with a flight deck on top. Carries goods and protects too!
(2) I think we should be making much greater use of decoys. For example, it seems to me like it should be fairly straightforward to spoof a submarine using passive sonar. You'd just need to simulate the sound of a larger ship and broadcast it into the ocean (from a much cheaper drone ship). The CVE could service (and refuel) the drone ships carrying the decoy equipment.
(3) A handful of F35B aircraft on the CVE might well be sufficient to deal with the occasional long range bomber, even though they won't make much difference in a carrier battle group. We could also modify the navy's version of the V22 to provide airborne early warning for this purpose.
Remember: Amateurs discuss tactics. Professionals discuss logistics!
Delete- EMALS could launch our current aircraft on a shorter track without exerting the force placed on those same aircraft using a C-13 mod II. EMALS finally delivery that 100,000 lb take off ability right when we will likely never design a plane to need it. We could save enough to up the build rate and save even more w hot production line. 3 carriers in block buys every 8 years where 1 is an LH/LHN(Nuke) and 2 are CV/CVN
Delete- Looking at the single DDG budgeted for this year its cost is $248,883 per ton. The current cost for final delivery of the 3 DDG-1000 is $281,750 per ton. FFG-62 is the deal at $173K per ton. Building big with big capability needs its relative benefit assessed vs the health of the fleet. That seems to be more the issue. That and bad cost estimating among other things.
"EMALS could launch our current aircraft on a shorter track"
DeleteDo you have a reference for that? I've not heard anyone make that claim.
"I would rather just concentrate on Nimitz mark 2s. A carrier battle group is 4, so 16 total is a good start."
DeleteOperationally I think this would be great. But I don't know that we can afford it.
It's not just the high cost of the carriers, it's the cost of the carrier air wings.
To be effective they need to have 5th generation fighters. The cost of those 5th gen fighters is ghastly, but without them I don't think the carriers can achieve local air superiority.
That's why I advocated for the surface battle groups as a more cost effective way to accomplish some of the navy's missions without needing to send a carrier strike group.
The fewer number of carriers could then be better equipped.
Lutefisk
""EMALS could launch our current aircraft on a shorter track"
DeleteDo you have a reference for that? I've not heard anyone make that claim."
I don't have a reference, but it is, at least in principle, consistent with the laws of physics. In any machine that is based on pressure from an expanding gas (like a steam catapult, or the pistons in your car's engine), the pressure declines significantly as the gas expands. It's based on the well known gas laws. You know, like PV=nRT like we learned in high school.
The implication for the steam catapult it that the steam pressure, and thus the force on the aircraft, starts out high and decreases significantly over the course of the catapult stroke. So the acceleration starts out high and decreases.
So if an electric catapult (which works on different principles) can maintain the initial force over the full catapult stroke, then it can produce the same final speed in a shorter distance.
Of course, a different engineering choice is also possible. Namely, a smaller initial acceleration carried out over the same length of catapult track, producing the same final speed. This might be done to reduce stress on the pilot and the plane (which I understand is initially quite high with steam catapults). I suspect this design decision may have been made with the Ford program, since one of the selling points is lower stress on the plane. This might explain why you haven't heard anyone claim it as an advantage of the Ford design, since they might have focused on reducing stresses rather than minimizing the catapult length. Given that the Ford, of course, is a really big ship anyway so minimizing catapult length may not have been a key thing.
If you wanted to put EMALS on a smaller ship, you might make a different design decision, to go with the higher acceleration in order to fit the catapult on the smaller ship.
There's another principle of physics that you're forgetting and that is inertia - a body at rest tends to stay at rest. Whether launching via steam or electricity, the mass of the aircraft still has to be accelerated the same amount to achieve a final sustainable flight speed. Moving that mass from a dead rest to flight speed doesn't change due to catapult type. What changes is the applied pressure profile, as you noted. The only way to shorten the cat length is to apply MORE force, initially, or SUSTAIN the force throughout the cat length which, I think, is what you were alluding to. Since the entire rationale for EMALS was to minimize stress on the aircraft, increasing the initial force appears not to be an option. In fact, as I understand it, the initial force is DECREASED with EMALS to minimize that stress. Thus, a steam cat starts high and decreases while an electric cat starts low and maintains. The net result is a cat length that is the same.
DeleteNow, if you're willing to apply greater force initially and sustain it then you could shorten the shot length. How much is an open question but I suspect not much. You still have to accelerate the same mass to the same final speed. Unless you increase the initial force beyond what the aircraft can handle, I suspect you wouldn't achieve any significant shortening of the cat length, however, an engineer would have to determine that.
I think it's telling that the Ford not only didn't decrease the cat length, a visual estimate suggests it might even be longer but I'm really unsure about that.
So, if one didn't care about increased stress on aircraft and pilot, it would theoretically be possible to shorten the cat length but the realities of aircraft (and pilot!) stress limits likely rule it out.
Well, not exactly. If the EMALS could sustain the initial force of the steam catapult (which the aircraft can obviously handle since they survive the steam catapult), then the total catapult length would be shorter, since the steam catapult CANNOT sustain the initial force. How much? No idea. Depends on the detailed design of the steam catapult -- as in, how much does the steam volume increase (and the pressure decrease) during the stroke.
DeleteOh, by the way, I'm pretty sure that reducing stress on the aircraft was not the sole rationale for EMALS. It was a factor, but there were other factors as well, such as reducing maintenance and manpower requirements, expanding the range of aircraft that could be launched, and so on.
Delete"If the EMALS could sustain the initial force of the steam catapult "
DeleteActually, the initial stress on the aircraft is zero. The steam pressure may be at its max but the stress is zero. The stress builds rapidly on the aircraft as the pressure lessens. [Is that true? Does the pressure drop? Or, is steam injected into the cat piston during the stroke to maintain pressure? I don't know! I'll have to look into that. Do you know? If the steam 'reservoir' was large enough, I could envision the piston pressure remaining near constant as the volume of the piston would be small compared to the reservoir volume. I have no idea.]
"stress on the aircraft"
Interestingly, the initial EMALS cat shots revealed that the stress on the aircraft was too high and they modified the cat performance to reduce it. Presumably, that means they lessened the acceleration overall which would, again, suggest that there is little reduction in length possible.
I think we're differing on the definition of "stress". When the valve is turned on to let steam into the piston, steam fills the area behind it and the pressure builds up until it produces enough force to break the hold bar on the plane, and then the plane starts accelerating. At that point, the force on the plane is assuredly NOT zero.
DeleteI believe that there is a steam reservoir. I read somewhere (regrettably can't point to a reference) that it takes about 500 Kg of steam to launch a plane. Since it takes over 2000 Kilo Joules per Kg to make steam from water, making that amount of steam takes about 1 million KJ, or 1000 MegaJoules. Since the launch process takes a couple of seconds, that means making the steam on demand would require a power level on the order of 500 MW, which I think is probably too much for the reactor to supply in real time, since of course it also has to supply enough power to run the ship.
So my understanding is that they store up steam in a reservoir, and then turn on the valve to launch the plane after they've stored enough.
It's true that by increasing the size of the reservoir, that would make the relative increase in volume during launch smaller, so the force would be more even. But remember that there are limits to that, since the reservoir has to hold hot steam at very high pressure, so it's heavy. And there's obviously a limit to how much heavier it can be without causing other problems to the ship.
Incidentally, EMALS has a similar problem. The power in the electric EMALS motor that launches the plane is, during the launch process, far larger than the total power output of the ship. So they have to store up energy (over time) in what amounts to a giant battery (I think it's actually flywheels rather than a battery, but it's the same basic idea -- a giant energy storage device) and then dump it into the motor over a few seconds.
Incidentally, there's also another factor militating in favor of a steam reservoir. Remember different aircraft have different weights, and may need to reach different speeds (for example, the propeller driven AEW plane probably flies at lower speeds than the jet fighters). To get the right acceleration for each plane, I believe they adjust the initial steam pressure to vary the force on the plane. Obviously it's hard to do that with steam coming straight from the reactor, since that's all at a standard pressure. With a reservoir, you just fill it with steam until it reaches the right pressure.
DeleteNote that I'm not quoting a document here -- it's my general understanding so may not be totally correct in all respects.
General question:
DeleteWhat does EMALS due for EMCON?
Lutefisk
"What does EMALS due for EMCON?"
DeleteAccording to then CNO Greenert, EMALS is a giant electromagnetic beacon. There is no EMCON capability in the system.
"At that point, the force on the plane is assuredly NOT zero."
DeleteNot to be pedantic but the overall stress on the aircraft initially is very low since the aircraft is not moving and then moving only slowly. The 'g force' from acceleration is very small and the wings and fuselage are under little stress. Of course, the as the aircraft rapidly builds speed and the acceleration increases, the stress builds rapidly and, presumably, maximizes at the end of the stroke or somewhere near the end.
It would be fascinating to see a steam pressure profile graph during a cat shot as well as an aircraft stress profile.
I find the mechanics of cat operations to be fascinating and I'd almost consider doing a post on catapult operations but I suspect it's not really of general interest.
"According to then CNO Greenert, EMALS is a giant electromagnetic beacon. There is no EMCON capability in the system."
DeleteThat would seem to be an extremely unattractive characteristic.
Lutefisk
"Not to be pedantic but the overall stress on the aircraft initially is very low since the aircraft is not moving and then moving only slowly."
DeleteI'm sorry, but you are just wrong about this. But it just occurred to me what you might be talking about. Are you talking about the g-forces that the pilot experiences perpendicular to the direction of travel, during maneuvering in flight? That's not what I'm talking about. On the catapult, the plane is accelerating horizontally, and there absolutely is force on it to make it accelerate. This force has nothing whatsoever to do with the speed of the plane. Force is related to acceleration (the rate of change of velocity), not to the velocity itself. When it's accelerating, there's force on it.
If the plane is in flight and does a loop or something, THAT force depends on the speed of the plane (and on how tight the loop is). It's called centripetal acceleration in that case. It comes from changing the direction of the velocity rather than its magnitude. But it's still from changing the velocity, not the speed.
I would point out that the force experienced during catapult is in a different direction (lengthwise along the length of the plane) from when it's looping or whatever. So if the structure and wings are built to handle 9 G's or whatever when maneuvering, that doesn't mean it can handle 9 G's on the catapult, since the force is in a different direction.
Delete"I find the mechanics of cat operations to be fascinating and I'd almost consider doing a post on catapult operations but I suspect it's not really of general interest."
DeleteWell, I'd be interested.
Go for it, I say.
"What does EMALS due for EMCON?"
DeleteEMALS means that EMCON on the Fords is not possible because the thing isn't shielded, but the Navy doesn't care about EMCON anymore.
Or ASW, or MCM, or NGFS...
I can't find who was asking about EMALS length:
DeleteGoogle says EMALS is 91 meters long. My guess, the whole length is usable. Nimitz class catapults are 99 meters with 94 meters stroke. So very close if true.
"not a big fan of that cruiser concept, sounds like it'd cost 75% of a "battleship" and offer half the capabilities."
ReplyDeleteA modernized Des Moines would have the 3x3 8" guns. The Mark 16, 8" 55 caliber gun featured an autoloader capable of 10 rounds per minute.
It would have plenty of space for CIWS and should have enough deck space for at least 100 VLS cells.
The full load Des Moines was 21k tons.
The full load Iowa was 61k tons.
The awesome 16" guns fire two rounds per minute.
Different ships, different armaments, different capabilities.
Not sure why the Des Moines would be 75% of a battleship cost though.
Lutefisk
"Rather than bringing back the Iowas (those ladies were born in the forties, let them be), I'd love to see some prototypes for a modern BB or CA designed from scratch and built in small numbers."
ReplyDeleteDespite their age, those Iowas are capable ships.
If I was going to do this, I'd have three types of gun ships.
The first would be the Des Moines, at about 20k tons and 3x3 8" guns. They should be able to accommodate 100 VLS cells.
The second would be a battle cruiser based loosely on the Alaska class at about 40k tons and 3x3 12" guns. It should have enough deck space to accommodate 100+ VLS cells.
8 Des Moines and 4 Alaska class.
I would also completely update the Iowa class, with modern engines, electrical, 100+ VLS cells, and radars.
The 16" guns alone would make them extremely valuable.
I would, however, limit their use to keep from wearing them out.
One would be in active service. One would be retrofitting. One would be prepping for reserve. And one would be in reserve.
Two full crews, one on the active ship, and the other first putting the last ship in storage and then getting the next ready for active service.
In time of war those two crews would be the core of creating 4 crews for putting all four ships into service.
Those 16 ships would take a lot of the pressure off of the carrier strike groups, saving the carriers for jobs that only they can do.
Properly escorted and festooned with CIWS and ECM they should be survivable and effective.
Lutefisk
"Despite their age, those Iowas are capable ships."
DeleteThey're more than just capable, but also quite old.
Unless there's a war tomorrow, let them be and design a modern BB from scratch.
At this point, it's more cost-effective to build new battleships than to refit the 78-year-old Iowa class ships.
Delete"At this point, it's more cost-effective to build new battleships than to refit the 78-year-old Iowa class ships."
DeleteI think it's more cost-effective to refit the 78-year-old Iowa class ships than to build new battleships.
"At this point, it's more cost-effective to build new battleships than to refit the 78-year-old Iowa class ships."
Delete"I think it's more cost-effective to refit the 78-year-old Iowa class ships than to build new battleships."
Both statements are unsupported and meaningless. If either of you would like to create a case with data, that would be of interest to all!
"The second would be a battle cruiser based loosely on the Alaska class at about 40k tons and 3x3 12" guns...
Delete"8 Des Moines and 4 Alaska class"
I think the resources spent on new Alaska analogues, will be better spent on the new Iowa analogues. The Iowa class saw use after WW2; the Alaska class did NOT.
"I would also completely update the Iowa class, with modern engines, electrical, 100+ VLS cells, and radars."
To install modern engines- ideally, one shared with ships in service, e.g., the Gerald R. Ford class' nuclear reactor, or the Zumwalt class' gas turbines and electric motors (the ONLY systems for which we hear no bad news about whether they actually work)- you will have to replace the existing steam turbines; that will then require cutting holes in the roof armor, and then welding shut the holes you cut after you replace the engines.
You might as well build new ships from scratch. You can then have the ships use modern armor- composites, like the M1 Abrams' Chobham armor, to reduce their vulnerability to modern weapons as well as make them easier to repair- instead of rolled homogeneous steel.
"I would, however, limit their use to keep from wearing them out."
If the ships aren't sailing with any frequency, people will view them with the same suspicions they do the LCS, Zumwalt and Gerald R. Ford class ships. Congress will likely demand the Navy "Use them or lose them!" i.e., if the ships aren't patrolling and making port calls to reassure US allies, then they should be retired in favor of ships that CAN perform such duties.
@ aim9snake...you sure are working hard at this.
DeleteThe ship I'm proposing would only be loosely based on the Alaska class. At 40k tons it would be 2/3 the size of the Iowa. When building ships new the size of the ship matters in construction cost.
The 12" guns can be placed in a smaller ship, while the 16" guns are going to require a large turret ring making for a much larger ship.
In regard to the Iowa class refurbishment, I would never put a nuclear reactor in a combat ship that I thought would be taking damage.
Cutting through the Iowas to get at the engines is completely possible.
In regard to armor design, more modern armor ideas would be incorporated into new construction ships.
Since there are different warheads optimized for different ships, it's not necessarily a bad thing to have ships with no armor, modern armor, and steel armor all in the mix.
About the "use them or lose them" comment; you have chosen to interpret my comment as the ships would never sail.
They would simply not be sailing around the oceans without specific jobs to do.
Also, I've noticed that you like to use the Congress as the boogeyman as a way to attack others' ideas.
I have no reason to think that Congress is any less wise than the navy leadership at this point.
And the reason that the LCS, Zumwalt, and Ford class ships are viewed as junk is because they are junk.
Lutefisk
"...instead of rolled homogeneous steel."
DeleteUS battleships did not use rolled homogeneous steel for armor.
They used face hardened STS (Special Treatment Steel) which was designed to de-cap armor piercing shells.
Lutefisk
"When building ships new the size of the ship matters in construction cost."
DeleteNot as much as the cost of equipment, e.g., radar, command and control systems, weapons... And 40,000 tons is roughly the size of the North Carolina and South Dakota class battleships, which also bore 16" guns. If you're building a ship that big, you might as well use the larger gun, so economy of scale will reduce costs and let you use the weapons more often.
"Cutting through the Iowas to get at the engines is completely possible."
But not worth the effort, compared to simply building new ships.
"Also, I've noticed that you like to use the Congress as the boogeyman as a way to attack others' ideas."
I'm not using Congress as a bogeyman to attack your ideas, I'm acknowledging the fact it controls the Navy's budget, and thus, the Navy must convince Congress to agree with its plans- a difficult task, after REPEATED screwups diminished public confidence in the Navy.
"I have no reason to think that Congress is any less wise than the navy leadership at this point."
Sad but true.
"Not as much as the cost of equipment, e.g., radar, command and control systems, weapons.."
DeleteUnfortunately, this is a common misconception. For example, here is a post detailing the cost breakdown for the Burke class and it shows that the basic construction is far and away the largest part of the overall cost. I've repeatedly seen and demonstrated this with other ships, as well. "Burke Class Cost Breakdown"
So, yes, size is the major determinant of overall cost.
Talking cruisers, Des Moines and Alaska both were pinacles of breed, but they were also mega fauna quickly bred out of the post war ecosystem. We built 20 hulls the size of Baltimore and 40 the size of Cleveland. And both of them found more work in the following decades. If you go big, build something we stand a shot of building competitively. For instance, don't ask for a ship longer than anything Bath has ever launched.
Delete"We built 20 hulls the size of Baltimore and 40 the size of Cleveland. And both of them found more work in the following decades. If you go big, build something we stand a shot of building competitively."
DeleteWell said. If we build a weapons system in too few numbers, it'll quickly become useless due to wartime attrition, or peacetime maintenance costs- a lesson the Navy, the Air Force, the Congressmen and women controlling the services' budgets, apparently forgot.
"And 40,000 tons is roughly the size of the North Carolina and South Dakota class battleships, which also bore 16" guns. If you're building a ship that big, you might as well use the larger gun, so economy of scale will reduce costs and let you use the weapons more often."
DeleteThat is a real consideration. The ability to use the larger 16" gun would be a measurable benefit.
But the weight of the ship gets to be a problem.
The South Dakota class battleships were treaty compliant. To make it under the weight requirements they did some funky things with sloping the internal armor belts which I don't think anyone would want to do now.
To accommodate the 16" guns, the beam is 108'. This contributes to the max speed of a mediocre 27 knots.
The full load weight of the South Dakota still weighs in at 45k tons. To build it 'correctly' is going to keep adding more weight (likely exceeding 50k tons), which does get it up near the Iowa weight class.
The Alaska class was also built with weight restrictions.
To keep the weight down they were built with inadequate underwater protection.
Despite these shortcuts, the full load weight still comes in at just over 34k tons.
To fix those problems would add weight. That's why I estimate 40k tons full load on the newly built class.
The 12" guns on the Alaska allow a beam of 91' which affords the ships a top speed of 33 knots.
The top end speed may not be as important, but it directly translates into efficiency moving through the water and subsequently the ships' range.
It's all about tradeoffs.
If the navy built the smaller Alaska class it would save money.
The 12" gun would still do some serious gluteus maximus kicking, and would offer a throw weight in excess of the more rapidly firing 8" guns on the Des Moines.
When push comes to war and you would like to have the 16" gun option, you can activate the Iowa class ships that have been routinely updated/maintained and have a cadre of trained personnel to build around.
Lutefisk
" If we build a weapons system in too few numbers, it'll quickly become useless due to wartime attrition, or peacetime maintenance costs-"
DeleteAll ships, regardless of number produced, are batch production runs.
Lutefisk
Ugh. Gun-armed battleships and cruisers. What a waste of money.
DeleteWe don't have enough money to buy the modern subs and frigates we want. We have fewer carriers than the Navy says they need. Dusting off concepts that were obsolete when WWII started doesn't make any sense.
"Ugh. Gun-armed battleships and cruisers. What a waste of money.
DeleteWe don't have enough money to buy the modern subs and frigates we want. We have fewer carriers than the Navy says they need. Dusting off concepts that were obsolete when WWII started doesn't make any sense."
I would encourage you to think of how those concepts can be applied now, rather than what they did in the past.
A modern Des Moines class cruiser is a good example:
-It would have modern radars and electronics
-Deck space for 100 VLS cells
-Space available to mount most up-to-date ECM
-Room for more than a dozen CIWS (SeaRAM, Goalkeeper, Phalanx)
-Modern armor configurations to protect ship from leakers and near misses
-and the 8" guns for bombardment, sinking enemy merchant shipping, and WVR engagements
These would be effective in combat, but they would also be economically effective.
Gunships with 8", 12", or 16" guns would be able to assume some of the missions that are currently relegated to the carrier groups by default.
Lutefisk
"-Room for more than a dozen CIWS (SeaRAM, Goalkeeper, Phalanx)"
DeleteThis isn't WWII. These systems require their own radar tracks and will quickly run out of bands that they can share. Beyond that, they'll just interfere with each other.
"-and the 8" guns for bombardment, sinking enemy merchant shipping, and WVR engagements"
Bombard what? The Marines have given up amphibious assault, and we aren't getting close enough to the Chinese mainland to bombard anything there.
Sinking merchant ships can be done with 5" guns. And in the unlikely event of WVR engagements, we've already shown we prefer to use ASCMs and Standard missiles (see Op Praying Mantis).
"Gunships with 8", 12", or 16" guns would be able to assume some of the missions that are currently relegated to the carrier groups by default."
Which missions? The tiny sliver of land attack missions that might occur within a few miles of a coast that are suitable for area bombardment? Which coast exactly? How do these ships penetrate hundreds or thousands of miles of enemy A2AD to park off their coast?
No. All they do is eat up money better spent elsewhere.
We might need a 15-20,000t cruiser, but putting lots of guns on it is a waste. It needs to be BMD/AMD focused and have a decent VLS magazine.
"Sinking merchant ships can be done with 5" guns."
DeleteOther than tiny fishing vessels, absolutely not! The 5" gun is not a ship-sinker. This was proven conclusively in WWII. Merchant ships have only gotten bigger since WWII (massively so!) and simply cannot be sunk by 5" gunfire.
To address this, I've proposed arming certain ship types with large torpedo tubes (not the small ASW torpedo fit). Alternatively (and expensively) anti-ship missiles can be used but would require large numbers to sink a sizable merchant ship. Standard missiles are ineffective as ship-sinkers other than for very small vessels.
"These systems require their own radar tracks and will quickly run out of bands that they can share. Beyond that, they'll just interfere with each other."
DeleteThat is an interesting point that I hadn't heard before.
Would you be able to explain that a little, in layman's terms?
Lutefisk
Sinking merchant ships doesn't require anything fancy. They don't shoot back (for the most part).
DeleteSmaller ships can be sunk with 5" rounds at the waterline.
Larger ships might require more, but they're better taken as prizes. If not, then attach large limpet mines and blow holes in their hull. Or bomb them with airpower. Or board them and set scuttling charges from the inside. No need to waste expensive torpedoes.
"Bombard what?"
DeleteThat is always the key question. Another way of stating it is, what's the CONOPS?
The answer to 'bombard what?' depends on what our military strategy is and, unfortunately, we don't have one. The best we, as observers, can do is to list likely possible tasks which is a far cry from a proper CONOPS and strategy but …
What could a gun ship bombard?
-Chinese bases and ports in the middle east, Africa, Indian Ocean, etc. which make up part of the Chinese supply lines and peripheral defenses
-merchant shipping
-first island and SCS artificial islands (probably better done with cruise missiles
-anti-surface combat; I've posted that naval missile battles may well degenerate into gun battles or, assuming everyone employs EMCON, may arise as surprises
-supporting ground forces; there are ALWAYS ground forces in any conflict
-sinking small vessels like patrol boats and fishing vessels far more economically than using multi-million dollar missiles
-destroying ocean going facilities like oil rigs
With due consideration for the range limits, large caliber naval guns are a preferred alternative over missiles simply due to cost and availability issues.
I would not be in favor of a pure gun ship - that's too limited a use - but having some large caliber guns on some classes of ship seems a good idea.
"Or board them and set scuttling charges"
DeleteThe most dangerous thing a ship can do in war is stop and stay in one place. A captain wants to sink a ship as quickly as possible and move on. Torpedoes are the perfect balance between cost effectiveness and speed. Shoot and scoot, to borrow a land combat phrase!
"These systems require their own radar tracks and will quickly run out of bands that they can share."
DeleteI've never heard that. Do you have a reference?
As I understand it, every Phalanx and SeaRAM use the exact same radar frequency.
"Bombard what? The Marines have given up amphibious assault, and we aren't getting close enough to the Chinese mainland to bombard anything there."
Delete"Which missions? The tiny sliver of land attack missions that might occur within a few miles of a coast that are suitable for area bombardment? Which coast exactly? How do these ships penetrate hundreds or thousands of miles of enemy A2AD to park off their coast?"
I get the impression that you are fixated on the Chinese coast, which I agree does not seem to be plausible (at least initially).
But other than that the possibilities are only limited by the imagination:
-Iranian oil facilities
-other Middle East coastal targets
-Unfriendly ports during time of war
-enemy merchant shipping (especially Indian Ocean trade routes)
-Chinese bases in Sri Lanka
-NGFS
-built up islands in the South China Sea
-massed PLAN fishing fleets militia in the SCS
-control of key points like Straits of Malacca, Red Sea, Persian Gulf, etc.
-WVR engagements
Those are just off the top of my head. I'm quite sure that smart aggressive naval commanders would be able to derive a much longer list.
Lutefisk
"These systems require their own radar tracks and will quickly run out of bands that they can share."
DeleteHmm, I never heard there was a limit to how many CIWS you could have on a ship, always figured it was just a budget and space issue. Most ships have 1 to 2 with carrier having 3 to 4 as I recall. Now, I don't know if you need more than that, really depends on who's attacking you: if its like Falkland war, 1 CIWS per ship is probably enough, if its a Chinese war scenario and you at the receiving end of 20 to 30 ASMs, probably more than 1 CIWS would be better....only USN really knows,maybe!
@NICO
DeleteI envision CIWS with sectors of fire, similar to an infantry platoon's defensive fire plan, with overlapping fields of fire.
If individual CIWS are no longer in the fight due to damage, malfunction, or depletion of ammunition the neighboring CIWS would assume a larger sector (slice of the pie).
Lutefisk
@Lute. Yes, generally how I understand it too, every CIWS has a sectorof fire. The question is what happens if a navy were to stick a bunch of CIWS on a DDG a la WW2 style. Would they still work or run into a bunch of problems? I always assumed the reason most navies only put 1 CIWS is money and space issues.
DeleteI can't think of any ship with more than 4 CIWS and those being the battleships. Only ones with 3 are the Fords I think.
Delete- All for keeping torpedoes hand to pull the plug on a nearby ship, but I have to think incendiary rounds on a tanker or container ship will take care of business via the slow burn.
"-Chinese bases and ports in the middle east, Africa, Indian Ocean, etc. which make up part of the Chinese supply lines and peripheral defenses
Delete-merchant shipping
-first island and SCS artificial islands (probably better done with cruise missiles
-anti-surface combat; I've posted that naval missile battles may well degenerate into gun battles or, assuming everyone employs EMCON, may arise as surprises
-supporting ground forces; there are ALWAYS ground forces in any conflict
-sinking small vessels like patrol boats and fishing vessels far more economically than using multi-million dollar missiles
-destroying ocean going facilities like oil rigs"
All of which can be destroyed faster and easier with bombs or cruise missiles and don't require dusting off ancient designs from 80+ years ago.
"With due consideration for the range limits, large caliber naval guns are a preferred alternative over missiles simply due to cost and availability issues."
You can buy hundreds of thousands of JDAMs for the price of one battleship or large cruiser. Or thousands of cruise missiles.
Or up to tens of B-21s. Or some combination.
They are far more useful gun-armed battleships or large cruisers. Bombers can hit targets anywhere in the world, not just tiny slivers of coastline.
"I've never heard that. Do you have a reference?
DeleteAs I understand it, every Phalanx and SeaRAM use the exact same radar frequency."
I don't need a reference. It's basic physics. If more than one radar, on the same frequency, is trying to ping the same target, they will interfere with each other.
If a dozen Phalanx are split up into sectors, then each will have a TINY sector (30 degrees), and each can still only handle one missile at a time. So it's effectively like having one CIWS, unless the enemy is nice enough to spread its attack over a wide area, allowing multiple sectors to participate. Not likely.
"I don't need a reference. It's basic physics. If more than one radar, on the same frequency, is trying to ping the same target, they will interfere with each other."
DeleteHmmm, I'm not a radar expert at all.
But doesn't radar send out a signal that then bounces back off of an object and is then seen by the radar antennae?
Maybe I'm not very smart, but I don't really see how those interfere with each other?
Lutefisk
"But doesn't radar send out a signal that then bounces back off of an object and is then seen by the radar antennae?"
DeleteIt bounces back to every radar antenna looking at it.
If I shine a flashlight on a wall, and you're standing a bit away from me, you will see the reflection of the light too. If we're both shining flashlights on a wall, is the light I'm seeing from your flashlight or mine (or both)?
Radars require precise timing of signal to bounce back to provide range to target. If my antenna is receiving your signal, how do I know when you sent it or how far it traveled?
For gun-based systems, this timing is critical to hitting the target.
"Radars require precise timing of signal to bounce back to provide range to target. If my antenna is receiving your signal, how do I know when you sent it or how far it traveled?"
DeleteThat makes sense.
So how can that be worked around?
Can they have different frequencies?
If so, how many are available?
CIWS on opposite sides of the ship wouldn't share any signal reflection, but you still might have problems with nearby ships' signals reflecting.
Lutefisk
I'm not a radar expert but I'm pretty sure you're incorrect. There are any number of examples of identical radars clustered together and operating just fine. Multiple Burkes/Ticos, for example, are able to each operate their radars without interfering with each other. Multiple aircraft can each operate their own radars. Multiple CIWS can operate from one ship so if two can do it, I see no reason why several couldn't operate from the same ship. And so on.
Delete"Radars require precise timing of signal to bounce back to provide range to target. If my antenna is receiving your signal, how do I know when you sent it or how far it traveled?"
Multi-static radar (and sonar) systems have been developed which use source signals from other systems.
Clearly, designers have figured out how to operate multiple, identical frequency radars in fairly close proximity without interference.
Im late to the convo, but I dont think the gunship proponents are arguing in favor of just gunships. Obviously we need an AAW-centric Tico replacement cruiser. BUT... There is certainly a niche thats worth filling with ships carrying major caliber guns. Of course Im enamored with BBs and the 16in gun. But 8in hits a sweet spot in shell weight, rate of fire, and gun mount weight/space/cost. Its a credible and useful gun vs the 5in, and could have been employed on the Spruances and all follow on ships with some small ship design alterations.
DeleteGenerally speaking, for every 50% increase in gun size, the shell weight increases by ~400%. But the gun/turret/rotating assembly weight and size climbs almost exponentially. So while the 12in gun is intriguing, and we'd all love to see FltII Iowas, I feel like a freshened 8in gun in twin mounts, with deep mazagines to support that ~10rpm could be a very viable answer...
"All of which can be destroyed faster and easier with bombs or cruise missiles"
DeleteCruise missiles are hugely more expensive than conventional gun rounds. Further, missiles, being much more complex, will be in short supply in a war and using them on simple targets that can be serviced with conventional gun rounds would be foolish and wasteful.
Bombs would work but require the presence of suitable aircraft and in a war aircraft are going to be in short supply anywhere but at the main focus of operations. Guns on ships offer a readily available option.
Bomb carrying aircraft have to approach the target and likely deal with anti-aircraft defenses. A ship can stand off and lob shells all day with no risk (assuming no enemy air or naval forces and even those can be dealt with).
This is not a one-or-the-other situation. As with most combat systems, a variety of options is always a good thing and naval guns have a great deal of flexibility and capability. If you'll recall, the conversation began with the proposition that gun ships could take up some of the missions that would otherwise require carriers and the discussion has clearly demonstrated that this is true.
"I'm not a radar expert but I'm pretty sure you're incorrect. There are any number of examples of identical radars clustered together and operating just fine. Multiple Burkes/Ticos, for example, are able to each operate their radars without interfering with each other. Multiple aircraft can each operate their own radars. Multiple CIWS can operate from one ship so if two can do it, I see no reason why several couldn't operate from the same ship. And so on."
DeleteFirstly, they aren't clustered THAT closely. Think km, not meters. Second, they scan sectors. Every Burke in a task force isn't looking in every direction, simultaneously, nor is every Phalanx on a ship. Third, if they do need to share an area, they can split up the spectrum into channels, and only stick to their channel. How many channels are available is entirely dependent on the system. Fourth, these use cases don't require as precise timing as putting a stream of bullets on a small, fast-moving target, where even a meter off is the difference between a hit and a miss. CIWS does.
"Multi-static radar (and sonar) systems have been developed which use source signals from other systems.
Clearly, designers have figured out how to operate multiple, identical frequency radars in fairly close proximity without interference."
Yes, there are ways around this problem, but Phalanx and other CIWS don't implement multi-static radar. They rely on sectors of fire, and, possibly, subdividing the band into channels, which is what I said at the beginning of this.
I'm not privy to the details, but the only instances where we've seen more than one Phalanx has been when they're assigned specific sectors.
One obviously could build a CIWS system that better operate with others, in closer proximity,
"possibly, subdividing the band into channels,"
DeleteI've never heard that CIWS uses channels within the frequency band. Do you have a reference for this? I'm not trying to 'get' you, I'm trying to learn.
"Bombs would work but require the presence of suitable aircraft and in a war aircraft are going to be in short supply anywhere but at the main focus of operations. Guns on ships offer a readily available option."
DeleteSo aircraft are going to be in short supply, but many-billion dollar battleships or large cruisers are going to be plentiful? That doesn't make any sense. You could buy an entire carrier air wing for the price of a battleship (or most of one). Or multiple bomber squadrons.
"Bomb carrying aircraft have to approach the target and likely deal with anti-aircraft defenses. A ship can stand off and lob shells all day with no risk (assuming no enemy air or naval forces and even those can be dealt with)."
Ships have to get close enough to risk mines, submarines, air attack, ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, artillery, and even loitering munitions, UAVs, and suicide craft (see USS Cole). Hardly "no risk". Their spotters need to brave the same anti-aircraft defenses.
In ODS, the mighty battleships had to wait weeks for minesweepers to clear their firing areas. A very simple and inexpensive counter to a very expensive and limited capability. The Chinese have a lot of mines.
"This is not a one-or-the-other situation. As with most combat systems, a variety of options is always a good thing and naval guns have a great deal of flexibility and capability. If you'll recall, the conversation began with the proposition that gun ships could take up some of the missions that would otherwise require carriers and the discussion has clearly demonstrated that this is true."
No, variety is not a good thing when the other options are worse at the job, can only do a fraction of it, and are insanely expensive to boot. Buy more carriers. Buy more fighters. Buy more bombers. Buy more bombs and cruise missiles. Put MLRS on container ships if you have to. Don't waste money on gun-armed battleships.
Aircraft where you need them are going to be in short supply.
DeleteEspecially when you consider that a dozen 5th gen fighters cost somewhere in the neighborhood of $2.5 billion.
Then you need to have either a land based airfield or a floating airfield (aircraft carrier costing $13 billion-ish each) in proximity to the target.
I don't think it's as readily available as you think.
If the navy had 8 Des Moines type cruiser, 4 Alaska type battle cruisers, and the 4 Iowa class battleships they could mix and match those ships into task forces that could be in multiple places while the aircraft carriers occupy enemy attention at other locations.
I'm not really sure why you are having such an emotional response to what seems like a pragmatic approach using gun-ships for some missions.
Lutefisk
"Yes, there are ways around this problem, but Phalanx and other CIWS don't implement multi-static radar. They rely on sectors of fire, and, possibly, subdividing the band into channels, which is what I said at the beginning of this."
DeleteIt's an interesting problem that I hadn't considered.
If I was going to defensively arm a Des Moines class cruiser, I would do as follows:
-Layered defense starting with standard missiles, followed by ESSM, followed by artillery w/ timed-fused flechette rounds, followed by SeaRAM, and finally CIWS gunfire
-Goalkeeper 30mm CIWS on bow and stern
-Three Phalanx 20mm CIWS on each side of the ship around the superstructure
-Two to three SeaRAM on each side of the ship around the superstructure
The overlapping fires would probably need to be eliminated but retain the ability to reorient sectors if adjacent CIWS go down.
But you couldn't eliminate the overlap between CIWS guns and the SeaRAM. If you had enough separate bands available though, you could still layer those.
Lutefisk
"If the navy had 8 Des Moines type cruiser, 4 Alaska type battle cruisers, and the 4 Iowa class battleships they could mix and match those ships into task forces that could be in multiple places while the aircraft carriers occupy enemy attention at other locations."
DeleteHow much do you think those ships are going to cost?
If we price them like DDG 51s on a $/t basis, each Iowa would cost $9 billion ($36B total), each Alaska would cost $6.7 billion ($27B total), and each Des Moines would cost almost $4 billion ($32B total). $95 billion total.
For that money, we could buy 47 Flt III Burkes, 90+ FFG(X)s, or 30 SSNs.
If the USAF hits their price target, we could buy 190 B-21s. That's unlikely, but probably still more than 100.
It's just not worth it for 16 ships who's main claim to fame are their short range guns.
"How much do you think those ships are going to cost?"
DeleteWithout agreeing or disagreeing with the concept, I would note that you seem determined to ignore the operating concept which is that these kinds of ships can pick up some of the peripheral (lesser priority) tasks that a carrier group would otherwise have to perform and can do so for a fraction of both the acquisition and operating costs. Consider that a carrier now (insanely!) costs $15B++ and carries with it the added cost of a $6B air wing.
Carriers will be in short supply during war and partial gun ships can nicely pick up the slack. Carriers are also far to costly to risk - which is a major flaw in their concept that the Navy has yet to address. A cheaper, more expendable ship will be a welcome option to a naval operations planner.
You're also ignoring the value while focusing on cost. Large, heavily armored, heavily armed ships offer great capability and survivability. Survivability is something a Burke has little of. It doesn't matter how many Burkes we can afford if they can't survive in combat.
I would also note that the Navy didn't hesitate to spend $9B+ on the Zumwalts (and got almost nothing useful for the money). That's a near total absence of value for the money.
There is a time and place to pinch pennies but designing the high end of a naval force is not it.
"It's an interesting problem that I hadn't considered."
DeleteIt's also a problem that may or may not exist. I've asked for - and am waiting to see - evidence that the problem is real. I've seen nothing to suggest that it is.
"Without agreeing or disagreeing with the concept, I would note that you seem determined to ignore the operating concept which is that these kinds of ships can pick up some of the peripheral (lesser priority) tasks that a carrier group would otherwise have to perform and can do so for a fraction of both the acquisition and operating costs. Consider that a carrier now (insanely!) costs $15B++ and carries with it the added cost of a $6B air wing."
DeletePretty expensive set of ships for "secondary" tasks.
That's four carriers PLUS airwings ($21B each by your numbers) for $95 billion, with money left over to buy 11 frigates to escort them. Not perfect, but I'd take that in a heartbeat over 16 ships with ancient, short ranged guns.
Those carriers can contribute to the actual war, not just to secondary efforts.
I can park MLRS on container ships, or build some Araphao carriers for F-35Bs for secondary efforts for far less than $95 billion.
"It doesn't matter how many Burkes we can afford if they can't survive in combat."
I guarantee 47 Burkes will survive a lot longer than 16 battleships and cruisers. Numbers matter.
You're welcome to your view!
Delete"each Iowa would cost $9 billion ($36B total)"
DeleteIs that your estimated cost to refurbish the Iowa class ships or to build them new?
Lutefisk
"Is that your estimated cost to refurbish the Iowa class ships or to build them new?"
DeleteBring back 80 year old ships that have been out of service for 30 years, or build new? Not sure it'd make much difference, cost-wise.
"Bring back 80 year old ships that have been out of service for 30 years, or build new? Not sure it'd make much difference, cost-wise."
DeleteIn other words, your post was simply hyperbole, not serious discussion.
Lutefisk
"If we price them like DDG 51s on a $/t basis, each Iowa would cost $9 billion ($36B total)"
DeleteYou really need to be careful about extrapolating costs of dissimilar ships on a cost per ton basis. For example, a Nimitz or Ford class carrier is (roughly) 10 times the displacement of a Burke (100,000 tons vs. 10,000 tons), but costs far less than 10 times as much ( 12 or 13 billion - for the Ford, less for the Nimitz - vs about 2 billion for the Burke). Might be better to try costing based on components?
"You really need to be careful about extrapolating costs of dissimilar ships on a cost per ton basis. "
DeleteI'm open to someone else coming up with a cost estimate to debate.
Carriers have a lot of empty space, but have nuclear power plants. So they aren't really good analogs.
Battleships are densely packed, like DDGs. If CNO is right that steel is not cheap, then battleships have a major cost contribution coming from the 15,000-odd tons worth of steel in their armor and construction.
Also, we have to reconstitute building large caliber guns, turrets and ammunition.
So while $9B is on the high end, maybe it's not that high.
"battleships have a major cost contribution coming from the 15,000-odd tons worth of steel in their armor and construction.
DeleteAlso, we have to reconstitute building large caliber guns, turrets and ammunition."
Which, of course, already exist if you are refurbishing a ship.
Lutefisk
"Which, of course, already exist if you are refurbishing a ship."
DeleteRefurbish museums, you mean.
How much confidence do we have that 80 year old breech blocks can withstand firing live rounds after being in storage for 30 years? Recertifying everything in those relics might cost more than just buying new ships. There's probably not a person left in the Navy who's actually fired them.
Guys, this thread is degenerating into pointlessness. No one is going to change the other's views. Probably best to drop it and move on!
Delete"Guys, this thread is degenerating into pointlessness. No one is going to change the other's views. Probably best to drop it and move on!"
DeleteWilco. We've devolved into arguing about the least important part of the discussion...the feasibility of refurbishing the Iowas.
Lutefisk
Send as many carriers as you wish. The PLAN's little missile patrol boats can disable all of them.
ReplyDeleteThen what will you do?
If you strike a target in China, China will strike a target in the USA.
We are asking for a repeat of Tsushima Straits–in spades.
This blog is not about politics and a sweeping, unsupported statement about missile boats is not the kind of quality comment I'm looking for.
DeleteDid you have something substantial you wanted to discuss?
ComNavOps, I think the point about little missile boats is valid.
DeleteChinese have lots of littoral and green water missile ships - over 80 Type 22 missiles boats as well as 72 Type 56 corvettes. (Then there's all the proper frigates and destroyers and submarines).
Supporting them are shore based aircraft ala H-6 or JH-7 or J-16/Su-30s.
---
The Tsushima Strait analogy is reasonably accurate too - you're talking about a US fleet in hostile waters far away from home.
And the final point is that militarily strikes on Chinese mainland are a no go (just like they were in 1950-53).
It makes a coherent US approach difficult. And again Tsushima Straits analogy works - you have high value naval fleets operating in potentially hostile waters but unable to actively neutralise the enemy save engagement in those hostile waters!
" I think the point about little missile boats is valid."
DeleteIt's valid only if the carrier commander is a brain dead idiot (possible with today's navy!). No sane commander is going to take a carrier into the South China Sea without first ELIMINATING major threats … like a bunch of missile boats.
"militarily strikes on Chinese mainland are a no go"
That's ridiculous. If our strategy warrants it, then strikes on the mainland are completely feasible with proper preparation of the theatre.
I hate comments that have no grounding in any realistic scenario.
"That's ridiculous. If our strategy warrants it, then strikes on the mainland are completely feasible with proper preparation of the theatre."
DeleteI think he means they'll be a political no-go, not that it's impossible to strike mainland China.
Remember Vietnam?
"I think he means they'll be a political no-go, not that it's impossible to strike mainland China.
DeleteRemember Vietnam?"
It's all about what our strategic objectives are and whether we have the will to carry them out. We had no problem getting involved in Vietnam but we lost the will as the war dragged on because we had no compelling national security reason to be there, no viable plan to win, and no commitment from political leadership to do what was necessary.
One would hope that a war with China would have those factors. Assuming so, strikes on China then become politically acceptable.
"They're more than just capable, but also quite old.
ReplyDeleteUnless there's a war tomorrow, let them be and design a modern BB from scratch."
I largely agree with what you're saying.
That's why I'd have the Des Moines and Alaska classes to bear the brunt of the majority of the work.
I don't know anything about metallurgy or ship stresses, but that's why I'd try and keep the "mileage" low on the Iowas.
That's where I thought about rotating them through active service. They would stay more or less up to date (and with trained crews) while only being used in a limited way.
I also like the ideas on this blog about limiting the amount of 'pointless' sailing around. It reminds me of what we used to call in the army "boring holes in the sky" with our helicopters if we weren't doing some kind of combat training.
The times at sea should be less often but more intense and realistic to combat.
Lutefisk
"Now, is peace time … "
ReplyDeleteThis comment was deleted for containing ridiculous statements and for stating basic descriptions that don't further the discussion. Please see the Comment Policy page before commenting further.
Chicken or egg - what role should carriers serve in the 21st century? The only viable role I foresee is a supporting role for fleet air defense.
ReplyDeleteCarriers were originally designed to help scout for the fleet, which was built around capitol ships. Carrier aviation gained significant advantages over capitol ships in fleet engagements, but many realities have in turn put carriers, particularly massive
1. The advent of the UGM-27 Polaris missile put paid to the strategic mission of aircraft carriers; it should also have killed off strategic bombers and ground based missiles…
2. The rise of very fast (and quiet) submarines in large numbers increasing made the survivability of carriers suspect.
3. Carrier aircraft are *generally* less-capable than their land based counter-parts, making it tough even for multi-carrier task forces to do much more than conduct a raid or two. This is incredibly visible in when we compare land-based EW, airborne C4ISR, and MPA airframes against their carrier equivalents.
4. The advent of the BGM-109 Tomahawk missile severely reduced the value of carrier aviation in the conventional precision strike role.
5. The economics of carrier aviation make it very hard to justify the employment of aircraft carriers to support COIN and other low intensity warfare – you simply do not need the expensive aircraft for the mission, and appropriate aircraft (A-10s, Tucanos, etc.) can operate from local airfields.
I still see a role for a conventionally powered CV-67 sized carrier, but the Navy needs to seriously build better fighters and supporting EW/MPA/AEW aircraft (and CV-22 is not the answer).
GAB
I think that you will find other navys will be supporting and escorting this CSG too. Thats the whole point now. Multi country task groups. Happening more and more in pacific like nato.. france, australia, brits, japan, india, canada and occassionally brunei, new zealand and south korea. All in all a pretty powerful coalition of force.
ReplyDelete"Multi country task groups."
DeleteAs I've opined and demonstrated in the past, these are borderline worthless exercises. They're good for photo ops and public relations and not much else. The problem is that the various countries can never be counted on to act together and, in situations short of total war, are almost certain to not actively support US interests. The history of 'allies' not supporting the US outside of a world war is long. The recent example of a Spanish frigate pulling out of a US carrier group when the group was ordered to the Middle East in anticipation of trouble is just the latest.
Countries all have their own interests and views and, short of a world war, they rarely coincide. That being the case, training together is largely pointless.
And reading between the lines in support of my belief in the strategy of the growing multi coalition task groups in the pacific: https://seapowermagazine.org/ronald-reagan-csg-enters-south-china-sea/
ReplyDeleteComNavOps. If your community would like, i can post a heap of links relating to navy coalition cooperative ops and exercises underway now and recently in the indo pacific theatre? There is ever growing complex and high intensity coalition exercises being conducted. I know you challenge especially the realism of ew exercises. I think you would be surprised at what is happening in regards to ew "realstic exercises" in the south china sea at the moment. An area which is clearly clear from interupting normal/civil EM environments. Pretty high intensity "real" ops. Things are very much heating up in the indo pacific theatre of ops.
ReplyDeleteHold off on a 'heap' of links but if you'd like to post a representative one about realistic EW exercises, that would be fine.
DeleteJust breaking now: might be permanent....whatever that means...so does this mean one more new command and fleet? Why was my first thought this is just another money grab by USN?!?
ReplyDeletehttps://www.politico.com/news/2021/06/15/pentagon-navy-pacific-task-force-china-494605
We already have a permanent fleet (7th Fleet) forward deployed and stationed in Japan. From Wiki,
Delete" At present, it is the largest of the forward-deployed U.S. fleets, with 60 to 70 ships, 300 aircraft and 40,000 Navy, Marine Corps personnel, and Coast Guard support personnel."
The entire 7th fleet hasn't deterred China in the least. Is a task force of a few additional ships going to change anything?
Unless you're willing to use force, a thousand ships is an empty threat. So far, we have been completely unwilling to use force. It seems highly unlikely that the Biden administration will engage China. This is just a PR stunt and I would imagine Chinese leaders are laughing about it.
Considering how small RN, French Navy or Spanish navy are, how many ships are we talking about? 1 DD each for a few months a year? Maybe a sub? Some commenters were talking about local navies but apart from Japan and Australia, what are we going get from Philippines or Vietnam?!? Mayalasia? Thailand? Come on, not much at best!
DeleteThen as CNO says, what about the 7th Fleet? Is this on top of that or just juggling the same assets around to pretend USN is doing something? Plus, really going back to the top question posed here: what is this for?!? Just more photo ops?!? There's no strategy or plan here....
Some good news: 2 LCSs are out there "doing stuff"......
ReplyDeletehttps://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2021/06/16/dont-look-now-but-the-us-navys-littoral-combat-ships-are-actually-doing-stuff/
As an illustration of how far the Navy has sunk - watch the CNO try to answer questions from a Congress critter who is a retired Navy Connamder. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_j-W5t3KTU
ReplyDeleteIlluminating...
DeleteIt is clear from this and a host of other statements, articles, and, more importantly, actions, that the Navy flat out does not believe they will have to fight China for anyone else. Warfighting readiness isn't even in their top 10 list of priorities. While they pay some lip service to readiness and was with China, their actions all demonstrate that their focus is social issues and budget growth.
DeleteI guess I just need to start learning Chinese. And I thought I was too old for that .....
DeleteWhat are their dates to operate in the SCS? Wondering if they will be there at the same time as the HMS Queen Elizabeth and escorts. I don't think so, if they are there now then they will most likely be gone before the QE gets there.
ReplyDeleteQE is traveling in company with 2 Type 45 AAW destroyers, 2 Type 23 frigates, a USN Arleigh Burke destroyer, a Dutch destroyer, 2 UNREP/RAS ships, and 1 Brit SSN. Put that group together with the Reagan group and you would still be a bit light, but it would be almost a credible carrier group.
Are the French still in Asia? I think their carrier was in Singapore,end of May and they were supposed to be in the region til July? Not sure....
DeleteThere is an essay on WarOnTheRocks right now about how small force deployments don't do anything to stop aggression. We don't seem to be able to learn this. We will send a "force" like this in, when if we really wanted to get their attention, send 4 carriers and a battleship and 30 escorts, and have them hang around for a while, and replace them with a like force when they leave. Oh, wait, we don't have a battleship, and we don't have 4 carriers to spare, nor do we have 30 escorts to spare.
ReplyDeleteThe reason that NATO worked was because we had a large enough force permanently--or near-permanently--in Germany to make the Russians have to think. They might have been able to overrun us, but it would not have been easy or automatic. While China doesn't really have an effective carrier, let them know that dealing with US carriers in the SCS is going to become a way of life for them.
I've got it, we could send in the whole lot of LCSs. China would look at them and laugh. Then again, they might just decide to sink them, which would solve a problem.
If we want to be a credible force, we have to send credible forces. This kind of game playing is silly and unfortunate. Put enough forces in the area to make China think, "Oh, crap, they just might be serious. What if they are?" Then you change the bidding, on both sides. But you have to have a Navy that can do that regularly, without 13-month deployments, and we don't have that.
"if we really wanted to get their attention, send 4 carriers and a battleship and 30 escorts, and have them hang around for a while, and replace them with a like force when they leave."
DeleteYou really need to stop making false assertions. We could send a thousand ships into the SCS and station them permanently there and they wouldn't deter China in the least because we've proven repeatedly that we won't do anything except watch. You seem to have the notion that some number of ships will, by their mere presence, deter China and this is demonstrably false.
Now, if you want to append, 'and have them blow something up, then your force presence would mean something. Without that, you're no different than any number of Administrations who have drawn fictitious lines in the sand and haven't backed them up with actual force.
All your presence force will do is further irritate China and goad them into building even more ships and planes.
"The reason that NATO worked was because we had a large enough force permanently--or near-permanently--in Germany to make the Russians have to think."
This is another falsehood. There is absolutely no evidence that the Soviet Union ever intended to invade Europe. Their military buildup was a response to their own needs and their perceived threat from NATO. NATO became a self-fulfilling prophecy, in a sense.
"If we want to be a credible force, we have to send credible forces."
This is sophomoric thinking. If you want to be a credible force you have to DEMONSTRATE that you're willing to use that force. Iran, NKorea, Russia, and China are not deterred by our military because they know we won't actually use it against them.
You need to get a grasp on real world, real human behavior and stop writing this kind of fantasy … unless you append an action and you've thus far declined to do so in our discussions.
The "false assertions" are words you are putting into my mouth, not words that I have said. I have no intent of sending them in to do nothing. I would make it very clear to China that if you do A, this is how we will respond, and if you do B, that is how we will respond--and then, if provoked, do exactly what we said we will do.
DeleteI don't think we just go in shooting willy-nilly and start WWIII, but I do think we make it clear that we will exercise our rights fully in what we believe to be international waters, and will tolerate no interference with our doing so
And I'm not quite sure how we could goad China into building more ships and airplanes than they are already doing.
"I would make it very clear to China that if you do A, this is how we will respond"
DeleteYet again, those are empty words, devoid of specific actions. Why don't you give some examples of what actions your forces will take?
If you send an airplane to overfly and it makes an attacking move, we will shoot it down. If you send a ship or boat and it gets too close we will sink it.
DeleteReally ? … …. …
DeleteYou'll sink or shoot down a ship or plane in international waters or airspace, where they have every right to be, because it gets too close? You'll pardon me if I find that hard to believe!
I assume that you'll also be perfectly willing to accept, without protest, having our own ships sunk and aircraft shot down if we get what the Chinese deem 'too close' to their assets? That's only fair, after all.
I'm sorry but I don't believe you.
I'm really not interested in having another one of these. I'm out.
DeleteExcellent critique, sir.
ReplyDeleteMy question is, Where are the Littoral Combat Ships?
Old reserve XO/Navigator here.
XO, I'm not sure what comment, post, or person you're referring to but glad you got something out of it!
DeleteGiven your experience, what are your thoughts on peacetime naval operations in the South China Sea. Do they accomplish anything? If so, what? If not, do you have any alternate suggestions for dealing with China from a naval perspective?
If you haven't already, you might want to read this post: Forward Presence
and this one: Deterrence Disproved
Just an attempt at some humor, sir. In my day, whenever there was a crisis situation the Word was always, Where Are Our Carriers, and I said Where Are Our LCS's?
DeleteIn answer to your response, in my experience, gained from two deployments to The South China Sea--one for eight months and another for 13 months--is that the crew will become quite proficient in UNREP operations and in experiencing the effects of sleep deprivation, and that’s about the only “benefit” to be gained from any deployment. Sending a mini carrier strike force with such a limited tactical capability to that area will accomplish just about as much and is, quite frankly, embarrassing and I agree with your observations entirely.
DeleteTo this old sailor’s mind, unless and until, the Navy solves the surface officer proficiency problem—regarding which, quite incidentally—was the subject of an ad hoc group in which I participated in 1968—the discussion of strategy is moot.
Just an old reserve XO/NAV talking here. I promise to stick to the subject from here on out.
"I promise to stick to the subject from here on out."
DeleteThe subject is 'naval matters' so you're just fine!
Thanks for sharing your experiences. Always good to hear from someone who has 'been there, done that'! Chime in anytime.
CDR Chip:
ReplyDeleteDon't leave permanently, sir. Your comments are always interesting.
Old reserve XO/Nav. here.
Not leaving permanently. Just when I have a post that elicits responses of "false assertions," "another falsehood," "sophomoric thinking," and "fantasy," I kind of get turned off a bit. And then when someone who says, "if you have them blow something up, then your force presence would mean something," turns around refuses to believe that I might shoot down a provocative ship or airplane, I get a bit more perturbed.
DeleteComNavOps and I have different ideas of what to do about China. At the risk of possibly putting words in his mouth (and if I am doing so, ComNavOps, please say so and I will retract) I think he sees some sort of direct attack on the Chinese mainland. To me, that is a suicide mission. I prefer to contest them at the first island chain, contain them within the SCS, and put pressure on their economy to bring them down. I am basically reprising what we did post-WWII in Europe, where Truman bribed up an alliance to contain Soviet expansion and later Reagan put pressure on the Soviet economy to collapse them.
I just need to avoid reacting to the flak that some of my ideas seem to draw. As someone said yesterday, the more flak you take, the closer you are to the target.
CDR Chip, I'm sorry that you've taken offense but the reality is that you made some factually incorrect and/or unsupported statements. As I said, there is no evidence, whatsoever, that the Soviet Union ever intended an unprovoked invasion of Europe. Your belief that the mere presence of ships of some number will deter China is belied by the last decade or two of Chinese actions and aggression despite the presence of the entire 7th Fleet in close proximity. And so on. You can be offended, if you wish, but that doesn't change the reality. I protect the integrity of the blog by making sure that what is presented as fact, actually is and, I'm sorry, but you're presenting statements as fact that are not correct.
DeleteI'm sorry, but you are asserting things as factual that are not supported by fact. The only facts we have about Europe are that the USA maintained a significant military presence there for 45 years, during which time the Soviets did not invade. Whether the Soviets ever had any intention of invading is a matter of conjecture, not fact.
DeleteAs far as the South China Sea goes, the presence of a force too small to matter, doing nothing of significance (FONOPS) is clearly not going to deter anyone from doing anything. Continued presence of a force sufficient to cause China extreme difficulty in attempting to take or occupy any of the first island chain, accompanied by statements indicating that our clear intent is to prevent such occupation, sends a very different message from sending a carrier, a cruiser, and a destroyer through the area on a brief mission.
I don't know whether the Soviets ever entertained any serious thoughts about invading western Europe. I'd tend to guess that they had a battle plan for doing so, just as we had a battle plan (or several) for preventing that. If we had a platoon of riflemen in West Germany from time to time, I doubt that would have deterred them if they had entertained any invasion intentions.
I have opinions that are different from yours. That does not make your opinion factual, or mine untrue, or vice versa. I respect your opinions, and your intent to spur conversations that exchange ideas or opinions for making our Navy stronger. I expect the same from you.
"Whether the Soviets ever had any intention of invading is a matter of conjecture, not fact."
DeleteTherefore, claiming that our presence prevented an invasion is also conjecture.
"I have opinions that are different from yours."
And you are welcome to express those opinions, AS LONG AS THEY ARE PRESENTED AS OPINIONS AND NOT FACT. Abide by that simple requirement and you'll be fine.
"Therefore, claiming that our presence prevented an invasion is also conjecture."
DeleteWhat is not conjecture is that we were present in significant numbers and they did not invade.
"And you are welcome to express those opinions, AS LONG AS THEY ARE PRESENTED AS OPINIONS AND NOT FACT. Abide by that simple requirement and you'll be fine."
If I cite an external reference, I am presenting a fact. If not, I am presenting an opinion.
"What is not conjecture is that we were present in significant numbers and they did not invade."
DeleteYour are assigning causation without any evidence. There is a well known phenomenon in statistics that, briefly stated, warns about correlation without causation. Just because two things are correlated does not imply causation. Causation may or may not exist. For example, during the time in question, there were many birds in Europe and the Soviet Union did not invade. In fact, there were more birds than US soldiers. Therefore, it is just as valid to say that birds prevented the Soviet invasion as to say that the US presence did. Birds preventing an invasion is an example of correlation without causation (as far as we know, the Soviets were not frightened off by birds!).
Given what I assume is your math/stats background, I'm pretty sure you know about correlation and causation but have forgotten or ignored it because you WANT TO BELIEVE that US presence deterred the Soviet Union.
This is getting tedious and I'm going to simply delete comments with continued incorrect claims. You can opine that presence equates to deterrence all you want but if you state as fact, I won't allow it. Fair warning.
"The only facts we have about Europe are that the USA maintained a significant military presence there for 45 years, during which time the Soviets did not invade. Whether the Soviets ever had any intention of invading is a matter of conjecture, not fact"
Delete"Your [sic] are assigning causation without any evidence"
I'm doing no such thing. I am explicitly not assigning causation. I think you have this habit of reading into my posts things that I am not stating, and then taking issue with the unstated things that you read in.
The following is my opinion. Presence of token forces (sending 400 "advisors" to Vietnam, FONOPS) accomplishes nothing. Presence of sufficient force to increase significantly the degree of difficulty for whatever event we seek to oppose or discourage (thousands of troops in Western Europe during the Cold War) has a chance to work. nothing more than that, nothing more than that. You may draw inferences about those comments, but those are your inferences, not my comments.
Our military commitment continues largely as a testament to inertia; the lack of vision and statecraft from decades of successive administrations. The U.S. presence in Europe was first a watch against a Nazi return to power in Germany, and only later a check on Soviet invasion, which I do not think was ever Stalin's plan, although the Russians certainly orchestrated a number of insurrections against European countries.
DeleteNATO has long outlived its usefulness, at least as far as the USA is concerned. We have committed to defend a group of nations as wealthy and as populous as ourselves, against a Russian nation that has half the population of Europe and a tenth of its wealth. In return, there is no serious European commitment to defending the USA or Canada, and at best a lukewarm commitment to “shared values”.
This one-way defense of Europe comes at great financial cost to the USA, while Europe is a major trading partner with potential USA adversaries like Russia, China, Iran, Syria, and so forth. European countries have a long history of punitive legal warfare against U.S. companies, and are extremely proficient at circumventing U.S. tariffs (e.g. selling European goods and services to the USA via Mexican partnerships). Russia is also a neighbor to the USA (take a good look at a map of the Arctic Ocean).
"testament to inertia"
DeleteNow that's a succinct and devastatingly accurate assessment!
Look forward to your comments, sir.
ReplyDeleteOld reserve XO/Navigator
I believe that you can build a CVL under 50,000 tons that is CATOBAR capable.(My reasoning is long, but I will happily post it.)
ReplyDeleteHowever, it would still need escorts, which was the theme of this thread. We don't just need a new class of ASW ship, we need 2!
The first would be a cheap ASW ship built in large numbers. It needs to be unmanned/optionally maned and does not need to be fast. The Sea Hunter drone looks like it might work.
The second class would be a manned frigate that could keep up with a CVN. That means 32 knots. Because of Froude's equations, it also means either a planning hull like the Freedom class or a multi-hull like the Independence class or the RV Triton. The trimaran hull can work, the Freedom class proved that the planning hull will NOT.
The O.H.Perry class was 4,100-4,200 tons and has systems that appear to be older versions of the Constellation's systems. I suspect that the Constellations length has more to due with Foude number than damage control, but trimaran can easily 32 knots while having good slow speed fuel economy.
I have some amateur calculations on both the CVL and the 5,000 ton(steel hulled) ASW frigate.
The second