The Marines have publicly stated that they are out of the amphibious assault business (so why are they buying ACVs? But, I digress …). The Commandant has designed his own, personal, slow, defenseless, light amphibious warship (LAW) that will somehow transport troops and supplies deep into enemy waters while remaining undetected. The new Marine war plan is to use small units to launch missiles at ships and, in some unspecified way, to conduct anti-submarine operations and sink subs.
With that in mind, it would seem that neither the Marines nor the Navy has any use for the multi-billion dollar big deck amphibious assault ships like the America class LHA and the San Antonio LPD and yet the Navy is continuing to build them. For example,
LHA-8 was laid down Mar-2019 and is currently under construction at Huntington Ingalls Industries (HII) in Pascagoula, Mississippi with delivery expected in 2024.
And,
The FY 2022 budget requests $68.6 million to support a future America class landing helicopter assault amphibious (LHA) ship. (1)
The 2022 National Defense Authorization Act, the military’s main budget, is currently being marked up and Congress appears to be adding funding for the America class LHA, LHA-9, to the shipbuilding budget. HII received a $107M contract for LHA-9 long lead items in Apr-2021.(2)
 |
| America Class - Don't Need 'Em But Still Building 'Em |
The Marines don’t want them. The Navy can’t use them. They’re hideously expensive to build and operate.
So … why are we building more LHAs?
This is the kind of head-scratching nonsense that makes me wonder if a lobotomy is a requirement for flag rank. It certainly appears so.
_________________________________
(1)Highlights of the Department of the Navy FY 2022 Budget, p.2-5
file:///F:/Report%20-%202022%20Budget%20Highlights.pdf
Isn't this just congress critters wanting the job programs in their districts to continue running?
ReplyDeleteWhat the military wants is irrelevant if it means shutting down production of something without something else to be built instead as that means job losses.
"Isn't this just congress critters wanting the job programs in their districts to continue running?"
DeleteNo. Congress rarely deviates from what the Navy requests - though they have done so a bit of late but generally for very good reasons. Without a doubt, individual Congressmen are aware of jobs in their state/district and may vote that way but the concerns of any individual state/district are dwarfed by the rest of Congress (hence, the blatant attempt to spread the F-35 manufacturing over as many states as possible). Congress pretty much goes along with whatever the Navy requests.
I think the 'Congress is to blame' meme is popular but non-critical thinking that, upon examination, doesn't hold up.
Do you hear any outcry from the Navy to end funding for the LHA/LPDs? No.
We all have a tendency to fall into these easy 'blames' that sound good but the reality is often quite different. We need to make sure that we don't fall prey to lazy thinking and, instead, continue to do our due diligence and analytical thinking.
Are LHA-8 and -9 going to be well-deck ships or aviation-centric?? If they're reverting to mini-carriers, it makes sense (at least to the Lightning Carrier fanboys), but if not, then considering current doctrine it makes none.
ReplyDeleteTo me this might be a reactionaly symptom of Zumwalt and LCS, in that to avoid future expensive failures, we will just "keep building what we're building"...
LHA-8 will be well deck. I haven't heard anything about LHA-9 but I assume it will be a well deck.
DeleteThe Navy wants them F-35 "carriers", don't they?
ReplyDeleteI have never heard anything official (or even semi-official) about the Navy wanting an F-35 carrier. I don't believe the Navy considers the F-35B to be particularly combat-useful - nor do I.
Delete"I have never heard anything official (or even semi-official) about the Navy wanting an F-35 carrier."
DeleteDidn't they modify some amphibious ships explicitly to make them able to operate the F-35B?
Yes, the Navy modified the Wasp to operate the F-35B. They may have modified another - I'm not sure. That was for the Marines to operate the F-35B. Again, I've heard no interest from the Navy about an F-35B carrier. In fact, the first America class ships were built without the ability to operate the F-35B fully and the Ford, itself, lacks the ability to operate the F-35C! The Navy was not planning to adapt the Ford follow on carriers until Congress made it mandatory to do so. The Navy's interest in the F-35, in general, is pretty lukewarm.
DeleteThe America has been modified to handle the F-35B. Every time an LHD goes into the yard, it gets modified to work the F-35B.
DeleteI believe Bonhomme Richard had just undergone the mods pre-fire...
DeleteIt would be a lot more useful to build a Midway sized carrier.
ReplyDeleteI'd use it as a CAS platform, but it would be useful for many applications.
Lutefisk
"I'd use it as a CAS platform"
DeleteOkay … where do you see naval CAS being needed? Against whom? What type of aircraft?
I envision the CAS that would be flown off these carriers as being done by Marine Corps pilots in support of the Marines.
DeleteI don't see the Marine Corps as a force that fights in a high-intensity conflict against a peer enemy at the FEBA.
(That is the Army's job with CAS provided by the Air Force).
What I do see this CAS doing is providing strikes in low and mid-intensity conflicts, the types of fights I think the Marines should be fighting.
I also see CAS supporting amphibious assaults. It would be incumbent on the Navy to establish local air superiority to enable CAS missions to be performed.
Of course, the shoulder-fired surface to air IR missile is out there, but that threat exists for helicopters and everything else that crosses the FLOT. A military can't stop doing essential work just because there is risk.
The aircraft I would use for this would be a navalized A-10. It's tough and carries a big punch.
In low threat environments I would utilize a prop aircraft, as many have suggested here on this blog.
But I wouldn't use the Super Tucano. I'd simply resurrect the A-1 Skyraider. It's superior in pretty much every way to the Tucano.
I think that an aggressive Marine Corps would find plenty of creative uses for these aircraft, despite their lack of glamour and airspeed.
Lutefisk
The Super Tucano is in production, meaning its acquisition and maintenance costs are low. The A-1 Skyraider is NOT in production, which means its acquisition and maintenance costs will be sky high for a decade- someone has to build factories to then build A-1s and their replacement parts- until a large order and economy of scale bring down those costs.
DeleteCurrently, no one thinks the A-1 will be worth those costs. Need a cheap, expendable ground attack plane? A Super Tucano or other armed trainer is good enough. Need a survivable ground attack plane? Then fit some bombs in a stealth fighter's internal weapons bays, the fighter's stealth and speed allowing it to avoid getting shot down. Need something in between? Don't bother, you either go big or go home, in modern war.
"Need a cheap, expendable ground attack plane?"
DeleteAs a former army scout helicopter pilot, the expendability factor here makes me a bit uncomfortable.
Lutefisk
"The A-1 Skyraider is NOT in production, which means its acquisition and maintenance costs will be sky high for a decade"
DeleteOh come on, now. So many people seem to think that building a new production facility will cost more than the national debt. A Skyraider is not much more than an automobile with wings. We can build a production facility for relatively little money (relative to DoD budgets!) and fairly quickly.
We also forget the lessons of WWII when our various production facilities re-geared to war production. For example, a small aircraft manufacturer could re-tool to produce Skyraiders with minimal effort and cost, if needed.
That said, your point about there being several other options that are more readily available is perfectly valid.
"Need a cheap, expendable ground attack plane?"
DeletePlease remember that the Tucano option - at least as I've discussed on this blog - was emphatically NOT intended as an opposed combat asset. It was intended to fill the unopposed, low/no threat mission of ground support - things like truck plinking or bombing ISIS oil convoys.
The Tucano would NOT, therefore, be 'expendable'. If we're in a situation where losses are anticipated then we need aircraft that are more combat-capable along with suppression measures (Growlers, for example) and co-ordinated ground attack forces.
CNO, am I overestimating the potential of the Skyraider?
DeleteI would anticipate using this aircraft in environments like Afghanistan and Iraq.
I see the biggest threats there as heavy machine guns and shoulder fired IR missiles rather than radar guided missiles.
I could also see it being used against an adversary's merchant shipping, the long legs and ordinance would be an asset in that role.
If a shoulder fired missile was spotted in time (no threat receiver warning as it's a passive IR seeker) I wonder if this plane could turn sharp enough to avoid the missile?(missiles are not dogfighters)
If you keep this out of high threat situations, I could see this being an extremely useful aircraft.
The Skyraider has some excellent traits: very long range (and the ability to carry drop tanks to extend that), 15 hard points, 8000 lbs of ordinance, 4 x 20mm cannons, ability to take damage and get the pilot home.
If I'm going to spend the money on an aircraft and a carrier to haul them around, I want to get something that's excellent.
Lutefisk
"I could also see it being used against an adversary's merchant shipping..."
DeleteMany shipping companies are multinationals, their ships registered in whichever nation offers low registration fees- including landlocked nations, IIRC. Attacking "an adversary's merchant shipping" may equate to attacking your own, your allies, and/or neutral nations' shipping, which will then put you in the same situation as Imperial Germany during World War I.
Aim9snake,
DeleteMaybe I'm misunderstanding you, but are you saying that you would never attack merchant shipping and wouldn't retain the capability to do so?
Lutefisk
If the enemy is using merchant ships as auxiliary cruisers- e.g., hiding missile launchers inside cargo containers, as seen in many videos from Russian military industries- then they can be legally, and should be practically attacked. Otherwise, it's better to just bomb and then mine the enemy harbors. Otherwise, how can you tell if the "merchant shipping" is heading to an enemy harbor, a neutral harbor, an ally or your own harbor?
DeleteOne obvious problem- well, obvious to anyone who reads the damn map- with having the Indian Navy "strangle China's lifeline in the Malacca Strait," is the fact not only are Chinese merchant ships passing through it, but so are those of Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, the Philippines, Vietnam, Thailand... If the Chinese merchant ships change their flags to avoid attack, will you stupidly go after those of other nations, transforming them from neutral nations to Chinese allies, i.e., our enemies?
Besides, if you can kill an enemy aircraft carrier, you can certainly kill an enemy merchant ship.
DeleteIt's too bad that there isn't a way during a time of war with China to contact allies or neutrals like Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, Philippines, Vietnam, Thailand, etc., and find out what shipping they are sending through the war zone.
DeleteWe should invent some way of contacting them.
Lutefisk
"am I overestimating the potential of the Skyraider?"
DeleteYou've answered your own question with your last sentence:
" I want to get something that's excellent."
You're wanting to apply an 'excellent' solution to a problem that only requires an 'okay' solution. This is the Navy's problem, too. They only want exquisite solutions when 'okay' will often do.
Again, for the Tucano mission, THERE WOULD BE LITTLE OR NO OPPOSITION. If you have opposition then you need something better and more forceful than a Tucano or Skyraider. If there is no opposition then any cheap, light aircraft will do.
"If I'm going to spend the money on an aircraft"
YOU'RE NOT! At the low end (Tucano mission) the cost is free relative to Navy budgets. Don't go making it more than it needs to be.
"and a carrier"
Again, to operate a couple dozen Tucanos (or whatever) we don't need a America class or a dumbed down Nimitz. We need a bare bones WWII Essex type ship. Don't make it more than it needs to be.
"I could also see it being used against an adversary's merchant shipping"
No! Stay in your lane. The Tucano mission is not a combat mission. If you want to go sinking ships, we already have lots of ways to do that. Stay in your lane!
"not only are Chinese merchant ships passing through it, but so are those of Japan, Korea, … "
DeleteEveryone needs to remember that in a global war - which is what a war between the US and China will be - there won't be ANY shipping in that region. It will be a war zone and ships will avoid the area. Any moving through that area can be assumed to be either stupid beyond belief or supporting China. Either way, a valid target.
" find out what shipping they are sending through the war zone."
DeleteNo one is going to send shipping through a war zone!!!!!
"No! Stay in your lane. The Tucano mission is not a combat mission. If you want to go sinking ships, we already have lots of ways to do that. Stay in your lane!"
DeleteCNO, I've been thinking about this all day.
Really the difference, of course, is the CONOPS for the prop CAS aircraft.
The Super Tucano would be used where there isn't opposition.
That really does make sense.
The CONOPS that I was thinking of would be to use prop aircraft in conflicts like what we've been doing in Afghanistan and Iraq for the last 20 years.
For that mission I don't think you can use the Tucano.
But my question is, can you use a Skyraider?
The Skyraider can carry a huge load of ordinance a long ways and take a beating and still bring the pilot back.
But would the Iraq/Afghanistan environment be too dangerous for the Skyraider?
That's a question that I really don't have an answer for.
After your thorough explanation, I understand the role and value of the Tucano as you envision it.
But I ask your opinion; Would the Skyraider be able to function in the conficts that I mentioned?
Would the Skyraider cost per mission be low enough to provide value in Iraq/Afghanistan in the way the Tucano would in a no-threat environment?
I'm interested in your thoughts when/if you have time.
Lutefisk
"The Skyraider can carry a huge load of ordinance a long ways and take a beating and still bring the pilot back."
DeleteThere's nothing wrong with a Skyraider, per se. The biggest drawback is that it doesn't exist whereas a Tucano does.
Beyond that, the 'huge load of ordnance' the Skyraider carries is not needed for the Iraq/Afg operating areas. We did not, and do not, conduct high volume bombing. Instead, we attack single targets and, often, not even that and wind up bringing weapons back. Remember? This was one of the complaints about using Hornets: we were racking up flight hours to deliver less than one bomb per sortie.
By the way, 8000 lb of ordnance isn't much. An F-16 can carry around 17,000 lb, if I recall correctly.
"take a beating and still bring the pilot back."
As I've said, if the aircraft are likely to 'take a beating' then we need a full force response, not a Skyraider. Something like an A-10 would be ideal, combined with ground forces and EW/HARM suppression.
It's very easy to fall into the trap of trying to design each platform to fight an entire war on its own by maximizing the platform design. Instead, we should be MINIMIZING the platform design to do just the bare minimum necessary to accomplish the mission/role. Each asset needs to stay in its lane. The Marines are the epitome of trying to drive in everyone else's lane instead of their own. The Skyraider - aside from not existing - is an example of trying to drive in multiple lanes.
While a Skyraider could be brought back and would not cost a huge amount to build or operate, why do it when there are existing light attack/trainer aircraft that can fill the low/no threat role?
CNO, thanks for taking the time for that response.
DeleteOne of the things I like about this blog is that it embraces unconventional thinking and solutions to solving problems.
This is an example of that;
"we should be MINIMIZING the platform design to do just the bare minimum necessary to accomplish the mission/role"
Lutefisk
"we should be MINIMIZING the platform design to do just the bare minimum necessary to accomplish the mission/role"
DeleteI trust you understand the concept, here, but I'll expand on it for everyone's benefit.
On the face of it, who could object to adding more than the MINIMUM necessary for the mission/role? Well, if whatever was added was free and didn't detract from the primary role and performance than, sure, add everything you can think of. HOWEVER, the reality is that everything you add to a design increases the cost, complexity (making maintenance that much harder and repair more difficult), and size/weight of the design and, of course, increased size/weight invariably negatively impacts performance.
Finally, add-ons generally fall into the 'rarely used' category (or else they'd be part of the original design!) so they wind up increasing cost and decreasing performance while only being rarely used.
Most truly successful ship or aircraft designs (we're largely looking at WWII, here) were pretty focused on a single, primary function and incorporated the MINIMUM necessary to accomplish that function. The designers of WWII did not give the Fletcher 8" guns because it would have negatively impacted the Fletcher's primary purpose. Instead, they gave the Fletcher the MINIMUM gun necessary, the 5". The Hellcat was not given a bomb bay. And so on.
It is a problem if we want to fight every one every where. Fighting a regional power like Iran is different to fight a first tier power pal with the nation. Amphibious assault is still likely in fighting 2nd, 3rd tier nations but not to another superpower - any battle tend to be decided BVR air and naval battles. This causes confusions but reality is - Marine itself is confused what likely opponents would be.
ReplyDelete"Marine itself is confused what likely opponents would be."
DeleteNo, they're quite clear about who the enemy will be - China.
"Amphibious assault is still likely in fighting 2nd, 3rd tier nations"
If they happen, they won't be amphibious assaults, they'll be simple debarkations.
With the F-35B's miserly range- Lockheed Martin sacrificed a fuel tank to make room for the STOVL lift fan- Chinese antiship missiles can sink the "Lightning carrier" long before this carrier gets close enough to launch F-35Bs to hunt down and kill those antiship missile launchers. Targeting? The "Lightning carrier" can't carry E-2s to then provide long-range targeting for its F-35Bs- not that the latter can hit far, as smaller internal weapons bays were another necessary sacrifice to fit the lift fans- while China's recon planes can fly from airfields near its coast.
DeleteThe Marines REALLY didn't think this through.
"Lightning carrier"
DeleteBear in mind that no one, not even the Marines, have envisioned an F-35B mini-carrier as engaging in air superiority. The Marines have shown no great interest in the Lightning carrier concept and what little interest they have shown has been geared at ground support. Therefore, some of those drawbacks aren't really serious drawbacks. It all comes back to CONOPS, as these things always do … and should.
Every useable fighter has its won role and short comings thus you cannot have only one. So far, no nation has a fighter jet can do everything beautifully.
DeleteThe only F-35 variant is cheerfully accepted is --- F-35B by Marine. F-35B provide close-in support in amphibious assaults. Yes, their range is not as long as many others but they can launch from LHA and are much faster than helicopters.
"Bear in mind that no one, not even the Marines, have envisioned an F-35B mini-carrier as engaging in air superiority. The Marines have shown no great interest in the Lightning carrier concept and what little interest they have shown has been geared at ground support."
DeleteTo provide close air support, the F-35Bs have to get close to their targets- they can't carry large missiles with long ranges in the small internal weapons bays- meaning truck-mounted antiship missile launchers can keep the F-35Bs at bay, by keeping the "Lightning carriers" at bay. The Marines must rely on USN or USAF units to first clear the beaches of Chinese coastal defenses, before their F-35Bs can do any good- at which point, the USN and USAF will ask, "Why don't we provide the close air support the Marines need? Transfer the money from the jarheads to us, so we can further develop our own strike fighters!"
The USMC kinda sucks at interservice planning.
Today, almost everybody knows only after you have air superiority (even supremacy), you can then launch an amphibious assault or it will become a slaughter of your marine. LHA is designed to launch amphibious assault which means close to coast while your side have air superiority. At this moment, stealthy of F-35B is no longer that important, hang weapons under wings is no longer a major concerns. F-35B can now work with various helicopters to do amphibious assault.
DeleteWithout air superiority means your enemy has. They will then beat you from air no matter what you do.
We have the new LHA-8, and the follow-on LHA-9, and the Marines don't want the capability.... The Marines are no longer about forcible entry; what, then? The Army?
ReplyDeleteThe US Army maintains a very potent global forced entry capability
DeleteYes, they do. So, perhaps the new LHAs as vectors or jumping-off points for Army forces?
DeleteI liked your idea about making one or two of these dedicated UAV carriers.
ReplyDeleteWhat a country!!! $3 billion dollars plus and Congress/USN is like "do you know why we buying this? No, I thought you knew why we were buying it?"....
ReplyDeleteAmerica class LHA is a good platform of F-35B for land invasions.
ReplyDeleteI think America class would be a great basis for a new class of Hospital ships.
ReplyDeleteGood idea- certainly better than what the USMC intend for those ships.
DeleteIn June Navy made a handshake agreement with Ingalls for a multi-ship buy of four amphibs, three LPD-class amphibious transport docks and one LHA-class landing helicopter assault vessel in line with Congressional authorization in the FY2021 policy bill, contracts for LPDs 32 and 33 have not been awarded.
ReplyDeleteNow on hold as Navy carrying out its force structure assessment during its fiscal year 2023 budget review this summer and fall before executing the contract.
It would appear that Congress is the driving force for these amphibs, not the Navy.
https://news.usni.org/2021/06/08/navy-reaches-handshake-deal-on-four-ship-amphib-buy-pentagon-wants-new-navy-force-structure-assessment
"It would appear that Congress is the driving force for these amphibs, not the Navy."
DeleteNo. LHA-9, for example, appears as a Navy request in the 2019 budget (Volume 1-213):
"Advance Procurement funds in FY 2019 & FY 2023 and the first increment of Full Funding in FY24 are for the second Flight 1 ship, LHA 9."
Well, they're building the third or fourth Ford Class, the USS Doris Someone-Or-Other, 15 billion. They still haven't made the first cruise with the Original yet, and it's over 5 years out of the yards. They could have kept building Nimitz-class ships for 5 billion, but why do that when for the ship that can't sail, you get 15? See? They're just milking us. Period.
ReplyDeleteNimitzGuy,
DeleteI agree wholeheartedly with your post, except that instead of Nimitz', I'd build Kitty Hawks for the next few fleet carriers.
Lutefisk
Doris (Dorie) Miller: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doris_Miller
DeleteWith a Pacific conflict being the main focus for the foreseeable future, Id have to give the nod to Nimitzes... Any way to minimize the reliance on a long and most likely unprotected supply chain seems a good idea...
Delete"With a Pacific conflict being the main focus for the foreseeable future, Id have to give the nod to Nimitzes... Any way to minimize the reliance on a long and most likely unprotected supply chain seems a good idea..."
DeleteThat's a strong argument for the Nimitz carriers.
My concern is having a nuclear reactor on a surface ship that can be assumed to be at risk for damage.
While the space saved on the carrier for fuel for it's main engines is of real value, the risk of nuclear contamination making a ship permanently unusable is of great concern.
I don't believe that it is worth the risk compared to an incremental increase in ship's fuel for the supply chain.
Just my two cents.
Lutefisk
Lutefisk,
DeleteI'd build a mix of Nimitz snd Kitty Hawks. You could probably build one of each for about the cost of one Ford, so two carriers for the price of one.
CDR Chip,
DeleteDo you have an estimate of what a Kitty Hawk might cost now?
Lutefisk
"Do you have an estimate of what a Kitty Hawk might cost now?"
DeleteWell, the America class LHA's, which are much smaller and less capable, cost around $3.5 billion or so, so it can't be less than that. So as a very crude guess, it would probably be at least 5 or 6 billion.
"CDR Chip,
DeleteDo you have an estimate of what a Kitty Hawk might cost now?
Lutefisk"
"Well, the America class LHA's, which are much smaller and less capable, cost around $3.5 billion or so, so it can't be less than that. So as a very crude guess, it would probably be at least 5 or 6 billion."
I would guess about $6B. And about $9B or so for a Nimitz. So the pair would run about $15B, or the cost of one Ford.
A Nimitz today would cost almost as much as a Ford.
DeleteCVN-76 cost $4.3 billion in FY95 dollars. Carriers have experienced around 4% inflation in production cost per year. So in 2021, CVN-76 would cost $11.9 billion in inflation adjusted dollars.
https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/114th-congress-2015-2016/reports/51469-Carrier_Inflation.pdf
https://man.fas.org/dod-101/sys/ship/cvn-76.htm
This is around the same as what was budgeted for CVN 79 in FY22 dollars, though we'll see how much over she actually is on delivery.
We wouldn't build a Nimitz repeat in 2021 either. Things like SPS-48/49 haven't been built in decades in the US. There would be some modernization even if it didn't include EMALS/AAR/new elevators.
I say build one class of conventional carrier that replaces both the CVNs and LHA/Ds. Something in the Queen Elizabeth to Kitty Hawk size range carrying around 55 aircraft (vs the nominal 75 aircraft on the CVNs). The Navy estimated such a ship would cost around 63% of a CVN. So pick your favorite cost estimate for the CVN and multiply by 0.63. Probably in the $8-9B range.
https://interestedamateur.blogspot.com/2020/10/iafm-fleet-architecture.html
Yeah, I figure slightly over 8.8B in 2020 US dollars.
Delete"...the risk of nuclear contamination..."
DeleteWhile I understand the thought here, if a CVN takes enough damage to threaten the reactor, its certainly a mission-kill at the least, for both nuclear AND conventional variants, and that kind of damage would probably sideline both for anything less than a marathon war. That level of damage could lead them to be stricken, rather than repaired at wars end, so result is basically the same. (Scratch one flattop)
"...incremental increase in ship's fuel for the supply chain."
I think that increment would be pretty significant. Imagine the Navy following proper CNO-esque guidelines, and puts 3-4 carriers together, with a proper escort of at least 30 ships. That's a large, thirsty fleet that won't be languishing at economical speeds!! Assuming worst cases, with Japan being so close and under fire as to not be a sustainable logistics origin, and other countries like PI staying neutral and/or not allowing basing, the CONUS/HI would be the source. Two different logistics scenarios are possible, and neither is insignificant. The first would be that supply ships would be generally unescorted and very vulnerable to an intelligent Chinese interdiction campaign. The second would be a well escorted provisioning group, which could significantly tax the Navys capability to provide enough ships to do so. Never mind that with the current state of ASW, even an escorted group could see significant losses...
Either way, I think the CVNs ability to potentially stay in a protracted fight a few more days without support than a conventional carrier (both in fuel and ordanance) is worth the risk.
"The first would be that supply ships would be generally unescorted and very vulnerable to an intelligent Chinese interdiction campaign."
DeleteWe figured out how to do this in WWII. It's not hard. It starts with individual ships that have good range. Our ships today are very short legged compared to WWII ships. After proper ship design, a task force fights on a mission basis. It does not stay at sea indefinitely. It goes out, executes the mission, and returns. Just like for aircraft, tanking is supplied to the group on the outbound leg as it prepares to enter the operation area and then tanking is again provided on the return leg. The refueling occur in a 'safe' area. This is pretty straightforward. We've just forgotten how to operate a navy.
The entire fuel issue, as it relates to nuclear vs conventional carriers is moot. Given the number of non-nuclear escorts, substantial refueling capability will be needed regardless. Whether the group includes a nuclear or non-nuclear carrier is irrelevant, as regards refueling.
@Bob Nagele, you had a few comments appear in the spam folder of the blog and I failed to spot and redirect them in a timely manner. My apologies. I'll try to pay more attention to that.
DeleteWhy are we building another LHA (or for that matter, anything else we are building)?
ReplyDeleteComNavOps, I think you answered it with your prior thread, "Those same leaders who failed to defeat third world thugs are the ones remaking our military for the coming war with China."
Honestly if the USN is that adamant on getting LHA like the American class at least go the extra mile and give it catapults to make it a true carrier.
ReplyDeleteThe fact is that the USN is trying to sell the new LHAs as some kind of pseudo carrier for the Marine corps but cheaper. Instead of making it like a Wasp class with a well deck for true amphibious assault or catapults to make it a true carrier. They compromise and ended up with a shitty WW2 design, that does not even have a ski jump for crying out loud.
If both were flying comparable fighters, the America class is going to get creamed by any self-respective carrier out there.
"at least go the extra mile and give it catapults to make it a true carrier."
DeleteA 'true' carrier needs much more than that. It needs a steam plant (conventional cat) or massive electrical source (EMALS), arresting gear and some kind of gear handling system, the ability to operate AEW, EW, and tanking aircraft, extensive air control facilities, and air control radars and automated landing systems, much more extensive hangar, maintenance, and repair facilities, larger magazines, better weapon elevators, an angled deck, and so on.
" that does not even have a ski jump for crying out loud."
Ski jumps are not without significant drawbacks. For example, they eliminate a great deal of forward aircraft parking space which is where/how US carriers park many of their aircraft.
Which goes back to what I said, the American class is a compromise between 2 worlds that does none of it right.
DeleteAlso going back to the ski jump, the issue of forward parking space is a non-issue seeing as how the doctrine of the USN is to launch fighters like any other conventional fighters even if they are VTOL capable which necessitates that the forward position be cleared of fighters anyway. And the ski jump does not have to cover the entire front section, speculative drawings of the Izumo pictured it with a ski jump forming 2/3 of the front freeing space for planes as well. It's up for the USN to decide if sacrificing 2-4 fighter space is worth it if all fighters can take off with a greater load.
DeleteAn angled deck might be too much to ask for a light carrier but the QE series make do without them so I don't see that it is a big handicap for a light carrier
" necessitates that the forward position be cleared of fighters anyway"
DeleteWhich reduces the size of air wing the ship can operate. The Navy has stated that the LHA can operate a max of around 20 aircraft, depending on which claim you wish to believe. Twenty short ranged, lightly loaded aircraft just aren't much combat capability for the cost of a several billion dollar ship.
There's just nothing about a LHA carrier that is a good idea. As you noted, it's a compromised design with the worst of both extremes.
"ski jump"
DeleteHere's a good photo showing aircraft parked forward.
"LHA-6"
A ski jump would pretty well encroach on that space and eliminate 5 F-35s and a helo.
After WWII, Navy has never fought another comparable naval force. In most post WII era, Soviet Union's naval force was far behind US. It had moved toward becoming a credible threat only about 10 years before Soviet Union's dissolution. We didn't see Soviet Navy posed any threat to US fleet in the Vietnam War. Actually naval conflict between then two superpowers did not happen.
ReplyDeleteThis means US Navy doesn't have any real experience of fighting another comparable navy after WWII.
No doubt, US Navy is still bigger than Chinese one but there are two problems facing US Navy:
1. Potential battle field is not in mid Pacific where US has superiority, it is Asia Pacific where China can leverage on many land based missiles and aircrafts. Also, sonobuoy makes nuclear submarine difficult to operate in shallow waters alone Chinese coasts.
2. China's high tech capability in military is comparable to US. US Navy doesn't have obvious tech superiority to Chinese Navy
Both US and China are exploring how naval battles will be fought in Asia Pacific in future.
China is also building LHA, type 075 and soon type 076. Type 076 is said to operate not only helicopter but also EMAL launched fixed wing drones.
At least we know, both navies' leaders think LHA are important.
The Navy has lots of great ideas of the moment which never take flight. Fords over Ferrari's and distributed warfare. Both need to happen and don't. No way I'll find it now, but there was a ship design study guessing about 10 years ago where the LMSR and LHA designs got blended. I'm not sure that's not a bad way to go. It would allow the army gear to operate in an amphibious capacity easier when called upon. For me, its about getting quantities of scale on platform sizes favorable for our own production and maintenance infrastructure. A CV sized carrier, an old Panamax size logistics ship with real aviation capacity and or Suezmax tanker.
ReplyDeleteLHA-8 was laid down Mar-2019 and is currently under construction at Huntington Ingalls Industries (HII) in Pascagoula, Mississippi with delivery expected in 2024.
ReplyDeleteThats why. I wonder how many admirals are employed by them atm.