We’re all well familiar with the saga of the Ford’s problems. Now, the Navy appears determined to add further embarrassment to the Ford’s saga with an upcoming ‘deployment’. Ford has missed numerous schedule deadlines, the most recent being a scheduled 2018 deployment, itself long delayed for a ship that was launched in 2013, years behind schedule and commissioned in 2017, again, years behind schedule. Having missed the 2018 scheduled deployment, it is now 2022, nine years after launching and five years after commissioning and the ship is still not deployable. What’s a Navy to do? Well, in typical Navy fashion, they’re going to send the Ford on a fake public relations ‘deployment’, as they did for the first LCS. This year, Ford,
… will conduct a “service-retained early employment” period where the Navy keeps full control over the ship’s activities and schedule, Rear Adm. John Meier said.[1]
Huh? A ‘service-retained early employment’? What’s that?
An ‘employment’ rather than a deployment? What will this deployment employment
do? According to the Navy,
The carrier and its strike group will operate on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean alongside a long list of foreign navies, he [RAdm. Meier] said.
2nd Fleet’s sent out a ton of invitations, done a huge amount of work of inviting partners and allies to come and interact with Ford … [1]
So, this ‘employment’ will be a glorified air show cruise put on to entertain foreign navies?
But wait, it gets better. Faced with a continuing multitude of problems, the Ford will ‘employ’ with only a partial air wing.
The air wing will be a robust, fully capable air wing, but smaller than an operational carrier air wing, … But that air wing is going to be more potent than any other air wing on any other ship in the world as it is,” Meier said.[1]
So, a partial air wing on a carrier with unreliable – bordering on non-functional - catapults, arresting gear, elevators, dual band radar, self-defense system, etc. is going to be ‘more potent than any other air wing on any other ship in the world’ ? That’s some first class delusion or lying.
Do you have to be a born liar to be an Admiral or can you learn on the job?
But wait, it gets better (you kind of knew this was coming, didn’t you?). Because the arresting gear has a current failure rate of once every 36 traps (see, “Ford Reliability”), the carrier can’t operate its aircraft out of sight of land because the aircraft have to be able to frequently divert to land bases. So, the ‘employment’ will have to be conducted near land or risk losing aircraft ditching in the sea because they can’t trap back aboard.
The Navy’s newest carrier can’t operate out of sight of land? Well, that’s embarrassing!
“Honey, I’m going on deployment but I’ll be back in time for dinner!”
Well, with all that in mind, I’m looking forward to the Ford’s first deployment … uh, I mean ‘employment’ … uh, no, I mean ‘service-retained early … ‘ … … uh, I don’t know what I mean … but neither does the Navy.
Related note: The Navy is hoping for the first real deployment in 2024 but that has almost zero chance of happening given the nearly non-functional state of the various major systems. Even if, by some miracle, the problems are all solved and Ford deploys in 2024, that would still be an embarrassment, coming seven years after commissioning. Right now, it’s a toss up which will happen first: Ford’s mid-life refueling and overhaul or Ford’s first deployment!
__________________________________
[1]Defense News website, “US Navy carrier Ford to go on unusual deployment this year”, Megan Eckstein, 3-Feb-2022,
There's even more interesting stuff in the article:
ReplyDelete"He told Defense News after his speech that he’s trying to identify a “north star” number of ready ships the Navy could produce — some “full mission-capable,” some at a lower “mission-capable” level — and identify what resources are needed to create that readiness so the Navy can make smarter decisions to both provide what the joint force needs and also retain readiness for the service."
So what's difference between "full mission capable" and "mission capable?"
And how do they not know what ships they require at "full mission/mission capable" standard or what the resource requirements are to achieve that?
"So what's difference between "full mission capable" and "mission capable?"
DeleteThat sounds like the aviation readiness categories where 'full mission capable' means that an aircraft can execute any mission from the full mission set. 'Mission capable' is a reduced level of readiness where the aircraft can execute a single mission from the full set. Typically, the single mission is extremely minimal … like taking off.
I've never heard of ships being classified in this manner. It sounds like a means of executing more reduced manning. Presumably, a 'mission capable' ship would have a reduced caretaker crew rather than a full crew - pure speculation on my part.
It sounds like a way to reduce operating costs while still being able to claim a given number of 'ready' ships.
The Navy has already essentially done this with the Ticonderogas, though not using that terminology. If you recall, the Navy idled several Ticos for several years under the guise of an extended upgrade (which never really materialized). During those idled years, the ships had no crews but the Navy still counted the ships as being part of the battle force.
So the entire Ford class may be kept in a wartime reserve status, with a minimal crew and no flight ops because they are too valuable to wear out with peacetime deployments. Brilliant!
DeleteThere are 3 Ford Class carriers under construction. Navy has to deploy Ford or the other three could be in jeopardy.
ReplyDeleteThey've already taken parts & components from the USS Kennedy just so the USS Ford would be "able" to do this deployment.
DeleteI suspect, what was taken from Kennedy was what the article is referring to when it says "once repairs from the blasts are made."
Correction:
DeleteUSS John F. Kennedy (CVN-79) and USS Enterprise (CVN-80) are under construction.
USS Doris Miller (CVN-81) has not yet started (scheduled to lay down in 2026).
They've already spent a billion dollars on the fourth (CVN-81) constructing components.
DeleteHII Celebrates First Steel Cut for Aircraft Carrier Doris Miller (CVN 81)
Huntington Ingalls Industries (HII) hosted a ceremonial event today at its Newport News Shipbuilding division that marked the first construction milestone in the life of the aircraft carrier Doris Miller (CVN 81).
Naval News Staff 26 Aug 2021
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2021/08/hii-celebrates-first-steel-cut-for-aircraft-carrier-doris-miller-cvn-81/
And it will be the first carrier named after a black American, so it will be politically impossible to cancel. Yes, the Admirals are that devious.
Let's watch if USS Ford's deployment is for show or real. You should see with intensity and persistent of its aircraft launch, not just places sent to. Yes, Navy may send it to seems high tensity region such as the South China Sea but no real proactive actions toward Chinese Navy.
Delete"Yes, Navy may send it to seems high tensity region such as the South China Sea but no real proactive actions toward Chinese Navy."
DeleteBecause it's peacetime, despite media hysteria about the "threat" China poses. If it's wartime, the USN will keep the Ford FAR, FAR AWAY from Chinese Navy ships; without working arrestor gear, that POS ship can't contribute anything but serve as a platform for kamikaze attacks, and the Ford's planes will all be TOO EXPENSIVE to waste on a kamikaze attack (with the possible exception of the MQ-25 Stingray, which might not even work as an attack plane, due to technological limitations that will take years and lots of $$$ to fix).
"Let's watch if USS Ford's deployment is for show or real."
DeleteDid you read the post? The Navy just told you the 'employment' would just be an air show for the entertainment of allies.
If you're referring to the Ford's first real deployment, that's years away, if ever, and hasn't even been planned yet.
The truly sad thing is that for all the very real and well documented shortcomings of the Lightning Carrier concept, in a real war a Lightning Carrier might well be more valuable than a Ford. At least it can launch and recover some aircraft, if not the entire inventory that one would need to be able to use.
Delete"Let's watch if USS Ford's deployment is for show or real."
DeleteWhat happens the first time the EMALS gets out of alignment and they cannot launch any aircraft? How do put on an air show with the aircraft sitting on deck?
"HII Celebrates First Steel Cut for Aircraft Carrier Doris Miller (CVN 81)
DeleteHuntington Ingalls Industries (HII) hosted a ceremonial event today at its Newport News Shipbuilding division that marked the first construction milestone in the life of the aircraft carrier Doris Miller (CVN 81)."
So what you are telling us is that is still time to pause construction of at least the fourth and redesign to upgraded Nimitz standard.
Maybe as unlikely as Lloyd's, "So you are telling me there's a chance," in Dumb and Dumber, but one worth pursuing.
Actually, per my recall after 50-odd years and also per Wikipedia, the JFK was converted from nuke to conventional propulsion after construction started, so maybe more of a chance than Lloyd had.
DeleteId like to see a halt on Ford production. We're already committed to three now, and Im not optimistic that we will ever see the failure rates reach steam cat/trap levels. Thats unacceptable. All those notional sortie rates are not only useless, but unattainable anyway if the failure rate isnt fixed. The old saying "you get what you pay for" seemingly doesn't apply to defense spending. If it did, the Fords would be in the Constellation/Burke price range!!!
Delete(Even then, the performance and delays aren't acceptable, and we taxpayers should STILL be pissed about a $2B carrier thats late and dysfunctional!!)
" a $2B carrier thats late and dysfunctional"
DeleteUh, the Ford is somewhere in the $16B range and still counting!
Which is of course, absurd. My hyperbolizing wasnt clear. I was just thinking that the capability Ford brings is really more in the $2B range than what its actual price tag reads...
Delete"Lightning carrier".
DeleteNote that, in the worst case, the FORD could be a Lightning Carrier. And it could carry a lot more aircraft than the America series.
Also, it would probably be possible to build an AEW version of the V22 Osprey, which would solve the AEW problem. Or perhaps, the Hawkeye could be launched with rocket assist. This would still require replacing the arresting gear, but that should actually be possible without the major surgery to the ship that replacing the catapults would be.
In addition, I believe the existing Super Hornet could be launched without a catapult from a deck as long as the FORD's. Albeit not at maximum takeoff weight. I've read a couple articles about how they've demonstrated Super Hornet takeoffs from a short runway with a ramp at the end, in connection with a potential sale to India, which has STOBAR carriers.
"Note that, in the worst case, the FORD could be a Lightning Carrier. And it could carry a lot more aircraft than the America series."
DeleteBoy, that's not much of a return on investment. Then again, it might be preferable to launching a sortie and having them all have to ditch because you can't get them back onboard.
"Boy, that's not much of a return on investment"
DeleteObviously true, but it does beat zero. Of course we would have to think about whether it makes sense given the operating costs of a Ford.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteSadly, this issue crosses political parties with equal negligence and the "interference" is direct and calculated.
DeleteAsk why certain shipyards with no history of building vessels that meet the international definition of a 'ship', were given multi-billion dollar subsidies (defense infrastructure improvement), and then competed for ship contracts.
It is a racket. I am all for capitalism, but not crony capitalism. Given the current state of affairs, we would be better off with government shipyards.
"The Republican abhorrence of Government interference in big procurements"
DeleteThis is not a political blog. I encourage you to re-post your comment with the blatant political aspects removed. You made some interesting - though unsupported - general comments that could be worthy of discussion. Gather some facts and data and rework your comment and I'll gladly welcome it.
Dear ComNavOps I am the author of the above comment that you removed. I am unable to do what you suggest, not having my original comment to work from. However, should you like to, feel free to edit out the offending aspects (for which I apologize) and repost it yourself. I have searched the internet for a reference to the Senator's comments on a CSPAN interview - which I can clearly picture from memory despite it being long ago - but have failed to find one. Thank you and best wishes.
DeleteIt's obvious that this is USN plot to pretend FORD is ready and " on time" and assuage questions with this
ReplyDelete"service-retained early employment" (whatever the hell that means!).
FORD will be used once in awhile for these "deployments" and will be mainly a training AC, USN can't say it because spending probably over $15 billion to build a training carrier will piss off even Congress so USN had to come up with something to bury this garbage AC.
If you spend $14B on a gown, you have to go to some kind of a ball.
ReplyDeleteMaybe we shouldn't have decided to scrap USS Kitty Hawk quite so quickly. It was in category B maintenance for a long time, then they took it out and decided to scrap it just a year or two ago.
ReplyDeleteSadly it just left Bremerton last week on its long journey to Brownsville...
DeleteThe Hawk saw DECADES of hard service, and was in bad shape. Keeping it in service will be like drafting vets straight from retirement homes.
DeleteWant new, non-nuclear carriers? Best build them. Update the Essex class' design, license one from the UK or another ally, just make sure we can SUSTAIN them for the decades we'll need them, i.e., subsidize the factories building the many components needed to keep a unit in service. (The last part is a particular EPIC FAILing of the Pentagon, such that we constantly don't have enough operational ships and planes, because they don't have the replacement parts needed to keep them so, because the Pentagon allowed the factories that build those parts to go out of business.)
It might be worthwhile to start putting speed limits on the Nimitz carriers (at least the ones that are retiring in the next decade) as a way of getting a few more years of service life out of them.
ReplyDeleteThe energy taken from the reactor to go a particular distance (like across the Pacific Ocean) increases rapidly with transit speed. Crudely speaking, it goes like the square of the speed. That means, for example, that crossing the Pacific at 30 knots takes 4 times the energy as crossing at 15 knots. Reducing transit speeds (except, of course, in case of tactical necessity) might allow getting a couple additional deployments out of the reactor.
Why do we want them to last longer?
Delete"Why do we want them to last longer?"
DeleteWe might want them to last longer because their replacements, the FORD class, don't work. So if they don't last longer, we'll have a giant hole in our fleet during our period of maximum threat.
If worst comes to worst with the FORD's, we could start building Nimitz's again, but it would take some time to restart them.
Delete"We might want them to last longer because their replacements, the FORD class, don't work. So if they don't last longer, we'll have a giant hole in our fleet during our period of maximum threat."
DeleteMy bad. I misread. I thought said speed limits on the FORDs.
I guess I wonder if we could convert the Fords still under construction the steam cats and Nimitz arresting gear and weapons lifts. Probably cost an arm and a leg, but would you rather have a $15B carrier that doesn't work or a $20B carrier that does work? And while you're at it, fix the damned toilets.
Delete" I wonder if we could convert the Fords still under construction"
DeleteIt's not quite as simple as even that. Setting aside the IMMENSE problems associated with converting a ship that wasn't designed for steam into one that is (why don't you ponder what's required and describe it in a comment? it would be informative), the Ford has lots of other major problems. You know about the elevators but there's also the dual band radar that's having problems, the ship self-defense system is failing, I'm not aware that the two exploded turbine generators ever got satisfactorily repaired/replaced, etc. The various DOT&E reports have mentioned all these problems with varying degrees of coverage over the years. So, even you could magically put a steam cat and hydraulic arresting gear in, there's still lots of major problems.
And toilets.
While I agree that the Ford is a disaster, and this "deployment" is mostly a sham, the one thing I DO like about it is the "service retained" part. The COCOMS have been a serious drain, the cause of a lot of the extended deployments, and the reason that ships and crews have been run ragged. Frankly a reining in of their requests is long overdue, and I like the precedent being set here...
ReplyDelete" I like the precedent being set here..."
DeleteExcept that there is no precedent being set. If the Navy had a deployable ship and said no, that would be a precedent. The Ford is not deployable so no one is asking. There's nothing to say no to. This is just an air show publicity stunt.
Will the Ford ever be a reliable, deployable asset? Where was the origin of this debacle? In other words, is the Navy taking sole ownership of this or is it something that all parties (I don't mean political parties) involved are going to have to own up to?
ReplyDeleteIs the Ford destined to a pier-side attraction in Norfolk Harbor?
All of the Ford's problems can, eventually, be dealt with to varying degrees of success (or not total failure). The one piece of equipment that can't be, and the one that is in the worst shape, is the arresting gear. It is so phenomenally far from its reliability requirement that I see no hope to come anywhere near it. You can work around everything else but not arresting gear. If you can't reliably recover aircraft, you have a non-functional carrier.
DeleteSo, LCS-style early retirement or decade-long farce?
Delete@LONFO. It's just too damn big and expensive to sh#t can like LCS (then again, USN will get rid of them fast and that was a costly boondoggle!), my guess is USN will do these "deployments" for a couple of years and like CNO said, never get far from land so you never have a jet that has to ditch and raise questions then quietly will become a training carrier....so IMO, decade long farce.
DeleteThe real issue is USN building more FORDS so that's the billion dollar question: is the series fixed after FORD or will they all be lemons?!?!?
"The one piece of equipment that can't be, and the one that is in the worst shape, is the arresting gear."
DeleteWell, there may be hope then. It's probably horrifically expensive to replace the catapults with steam, but if worst comes to worst, it's probably a lot easier to rip out the arresting gear and retrofit the one from the Nimitz class.
"The real issue is USN building more FORDS so that's the billion dollar question: is the series fixed after FORD or will they all be lemons?!?!?"
DeleteThey will all be lemons until the series is stopped. If they don't have a solution for the Ford, then they don't have a solution for the rest.
The most outrageous thing is they refuse to halt construction of the 3rd and 4th Ford's knowing the blueprints have serious flaws. As for the other two, the Marines have a system to trap aircraft. It seems crazy, but what other reasonable choice exists in the short term?
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9rbTll60FA
"As for the other two, the Marines have a system to trap aircraft. It seems crazy, but what other reasonable choice exists in the short term?"
DeleteThe other reasonable choice would be the hydraulic system that has worked fine in the Nimitz class ships for about 50 years.
"The other reasonable choice would be the hydraulic system that has worked fine in the Nimitz class ships for about 50 years."
DeleteThat's only reasonable if the system remains in production, i.e., there are factories currently making components necessary to keep the arrestor systems in service, and those factories are able to "tool up" and make new arrestor systems for new ships. Is it, or did the Pentagon EPIC FAIL by telling manifacturers, "Go ahead and close down the factory. We won't need any more of the old systems for the old ships, when the new ships and their new systems will be replacing them soon," AGAIN?
Well, obviously neither of us knows whether the Nimitz arresting gear remains in production. However, two points:
Delete(1) Remember, there will be Nimitz class carriers in the fleet for another 40 years. During that time, we have to assume that one or more will be in battle, and possibly suffer battle damage to the arresting gear. If the Navy can't replace it and has to scrap the ship afterwards, that would be astounding.
(2) Even if the arresting gear is no longer in production, we still have the designs. So in the worst case, we could reconstruct the tooling to make it. Certainly inconvenient, but not a showstopper.
Regarding the Marine gear, a couple points:
Delete(1) Is it actually designed for a marine (that is, at sea on a ship) environment? With all that water, moisture, and salt? Not all of the Marine's equipment is? And if it isn't, it'll corrode away in not too much time.
(2) Can it actually stop the plane in the length of the angled flight deck? One document I saw says that the M31 arresting gear stops an aircraft in "less than 1000 feet". That's not long in connection with a land-based runway, but it's much longer than the landing zone on an aircraft carrier.
"That's only reasonable if the system remains in production"
DeleteThere is a widespread belief that once a production facility shuts down or switches to some other product, it can never again be resurrected. That's ridiculous. Facilities are repurposed and refurbished all the time. It's just a matter of desire and funding.
I'm not arguing for or against brining back Nimitz technologies but to believe that we CAN'T because the original facilities have shut down or altered their products is simply untrue.
Refurbishing a facility is far cheaper than the tens of billions of dollars spent on any new technology or the billions yet to be spent trying to make flawed technologies (EMALS, AAG, elevators, dual band radar, etc.) work.
We need to all stop claiming factories as a reason something can't be done.
The USAF is having EXTREME difficulty keeping the F-22 stealth fighter operational, as it allowed the production lines responsible for the aircraft and its components to be repurposed, and restarting production is judged to cost too much in time and $$$ to be worthwhile. IIRC, the US Army spends a lot of money keeping the M1 Abrams production line open, to avoid the kind of headache the USAF has when it needs to keep in service aircraft no longer in production. I doubt the USN will have an easier time with any syatems whose production lines the Pentagon stupidly allowed to close down.
DeleteWithout a doubt, the loss of parts production facilities is a problem, however, they could be easily reconstituted if it was deemed important enough. The loss of manufacturing facilities does not prevent anything, it just makes it more difficult and requires that we make a judgement about the importance. IF the USAF is having a hard time due to parts then they've clearly decided that not having the manufacturing facilities is not that big a problem. That may or may not be a wise decision. I have no data on operational problems for the F-22 and to what extent those problems are related to parts.
DeleteHas anyone suggested drilling VLS holes and turning those behemoths into arsenal ships yet?
ReplyDeleteAt least they'd have combat usefulness.
Someone inside USN should be having a hard time sleeping at night if after FORD, the next 3 carriers aren't fixed and still crap. USN can "manage" 1 crappy carrier but no way could sustain deployments (forget going to war) with FORD series not fixed. That's just too many carriers INOP or compromised.
ReplyDeleteNot sure what USN could use or figure out to use instead. Not buying that USN will ever go back to Nimitz class. IMO, USN will be out of of the big carrier business just like USMC is going out of amphib assault biz. It will happen faster than we think possible, my 2 cents.
"Someone inside USN should be having a hard time sleeping at night if after FORD, the next 3 carriers aren't fixed and still crap. USN can "manage" 1 crappy carrier but no way could sustain deployments (forget going to war) with FORD series not fixed."
DeleteAnd the Fords won't be fixed because they can't be. They are just a horribly flawed concept.
ComNavOps, I know you don't like the Lightning Carrier concept, and I understand and agree with your negatives. But the bottom line is that a Lightning Carrier, for all its shortcomings, is probably a more useful combat asset than a Ford at this point. Remember this, worst case, if the USN had 10 Lightning Carriers and no CVNs, it would still have the strongest naval air force in the world, by a long way, and for a fairly long time into the future.
What if we did this:
1) Complete any Fords currently under construction with Nimitz steam cats, traps, and weapons lifts. And fix the toilets. Yes that's expensive, but so what, at least you'd have something useful. And it should be doable. We converted the JFK from nuclear to conventional while it was under construction and this should not be harder than that.
2) Convert any LHAs/LHDs with significant remaining service life to Lightning Carriers--add ski jump and convert troop berthing, equipment, and well deck spaces to additional hangar and aircraft maintenance spaces. You could probably do 10 of them for the cost of one Ford, and get 40 aircraft onboard each--something like 24 F35Bs, 8 V-22s, 8 helos.
3) Go back to building improved Nimitzes, or perhaps RAND CVN LXs with steam cats, incorporating any lessons learned from the Fords.
4) Design and start building a conventional CV, something between a Midway and a Kitty Hawk, build one conventional CV for each nuke going forward, and use them to phase out the Lightning Carriers as they come online (which should pretty much be concurrent with the expiration of service lives of the Lightning Carriers).
5) Put the Ford (and the Zumwalts, while we are at it) out to pasture until they can fix their problems, and don't rely on them for anything until they are fixed.
If #1 costs $4B per ship, #2 costs $1.5B per ship, #3 costs $9B per ship, and #4 costs $5B per ship, we could have a naval air force of 24 carriers--12 CVNs, 12 Lightning Carriers phasing into 12 CVs--for about what 12 Fords would cost. And I know which one of those I would prefer.
One other point about my item #2 above, and I've said this before but will repeat it. As you phase the LHAs/LHDs out of the amphibious force, phase in more conventional amphibious squadrons--my idea would be a smaller LHA/LHD like Spanish Juan Carlos, LPH like French Mistral, LSD/LPD like British Albion, real LST with a beaching bow, LPA/LKA that could be a converted merchant, and land attack/NGFS frigate, with 155mm guns and rocket launchers, basically an enlarged LSMR. You give up 2 knots of SOA in return for a more versatile force that could actually conduct assaults. Also, convert the LPD-17s to the ABM/BMD ships that HII has proposed for the same hull, and deploy them around forward bases--Guam, Sasebo, Pearl, Rota--and major domestic ports/bases--Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Diego, Seattle, New York, Norfolk, New Orleans, Houston--to plug a big hole in our defense system.
Delete"the bottom line is that a Lightning Carrier, for all its shortcomings, is probably a more useful combat asset than a Ford at this point."
DeleteA combat canoe is more useful at this point. That's not the issue. The issue is the cost of operating a carrier, several thousand crew, lots of escorts, etc. just to provide a handful of limited effectiveness aircraft. I've got a post coming on Lightning carriers since it keeps coming up.
"it would still have the strongest naval air force in the world"
DeleteI expect better of you. That's an utterly irrelevant argument. The issue is not how big our carrier aviation is compared to anyone else's. It's how does our carrier aviation contribute to our overall military capability and strategy and Lightning carriers contribute very little relative to their operating cost. We could buy a LOT (LOT, LOT, LOT, LOT) of other capabilities for that cost.
"A combat canoe is more useful at this point. That's not the issue. The issue is the cost of operating a carrier, several thousand crew, lots of escorts, etc. just to provide a handful of limited effectiveness aircraft."
DeleteNo argument. My only point is that for all its shortcomings, a Lightning Carrier is still a better option than a Ford. It's cheaper to build and operate, and it can at least launch airplanes off the front end and recover them on the back end, which is something the Fords cannot do reliably. It's more a commentary on how bad the Fords are than any sort of puffing the Lightning Carrier concept.
"I expect better of you. That's an utterly irrelevant argument. The issue is not how big our carrier aviation is compared to anyone else's. It's how does our carrier aviation contribute to our overall military capability and strategy and Lightning carriers contribute very little relative to their operating cost."
No, you expect different of me. And it's not an utterly irrelevant argument. It's a different argument from the one you are making, but that doesn't make either of them irrelevant. All that I am saying is that a carrier that can launch and recover aircraft must inevitably contribute more to our overall military capability and strategy than one which cannot reliably do so.
Keep in mind I'm not proposing to build any Lightning Carriers. I'm just talking about trying to get some use out of a bunch of ships that we have already spent billions on.
Looking forward to your post on Lightning Carriers.
DeleteLet me be clear, if I had to rank them in order of ability to contribute to our military capability and strategy, in order from best to worst, I would say:
Delete1) Nimitz CVN - $9B to build
2) Kitty-Midway CV - $5-6B to build
3) Lightning Carrier - $1.5-2B to convert existing, $4B to build (not proposing to build any)
4) Large-deck LHA/LHD - $4B to build
5) Ford - $15B to build
And, other than possibly #4 and #5, I would not argue that any of them are close enough together to justify, or even to make a credible case for, bumping any of them up or down in that order.
Of course, a big problem that I see is that I don't think the Navy has a clue what its overall strategy should be, so they are spending billions on the bottom two ships in my ranking and nothing on the top three.
"a carrier that can launch and recover aircraft must inevitably contribute more to our overall military capability and strategy than one which cannot "
DeleteNO. The issue is not whether a bad asset is better than a horrible asset. The issue is whether the cost of either is worth the capability it offers. It is quite likely that a Lightning carrier offers far less overall capability than any of dozens or hundreds of other options. For example, We could buy untold numbers of cruise missiles for the cost of obtaining and operating a Lightning carrier group that offers only a very limited capability. And the list of alternatives goes on almost endlessly, each of which is a better overall contributor to our overall capability.
This fascination with comparing carriers or comparing our carriers to someone else's is utterly irrelevant.
As you know, I have been arguing for more and better cruise missiles--and platforms--for quite some time, so I would certainly favor much greater effort in that regard. I do find it interesting that you are making an opportunity cost argument.
DeleteAs far as comparing our carriers to someone else's, if we are looking at a possible war with that someone else then I would argue that such comparison is not in any way irrelevant.
Bottom line--You are far less favorably inclined toward the Lightning Carrier concept than I am. I don't think that is going to change.
" such comparison is not in any way irrelevant."
DeleteOf course it's irrelevant. The only relevant comparison is what the enemy's overall force can do compared to what our overall force can do.
This is exactly the US vs Soviet Union example. They had no carriers but that didn't mean that we automatically win the war. They chose to emphasize other areas like submarines and regimental strength bomber forces.
Similarly, China has emphasized other forces - although they're coming quickly with carriers - and they'll be fighting under circumstances where they can use their massive land based air and missile firepower. How many carriers we have is meaningless.
You have got to stop this carrier comparison fascination and start looking at overall military strength RELATIVE TO THE ASSOCIATED STRATEGY. I've outlined what China will want to do. Now look at the forces they have and their ability to achieve their objectives versus the forces we have and our ability to deny those objectives.
"Of course it's irrelevant. The only relevant comparison is what the enemy's overall force can do compared to what our overall force can do."
DeleteAnd comparing how many and what kinds of carriers we have versus what they have simply has to be relevant to that discussion. It simply can't fail to be.
As far as the relative to strategy comment, of course I agree with that. And I think a major problem the Navy has with respect to procurement presently is that it either doesn't have a strategy, or doesn't know what that strategy is, or somehow fails to connect strategy to requirements.
In short, what I understand that China wants to do is to take over the first island chain and use that as a jumping off point to become a dominant worldwide naval force. I think our response should be to defend in depth by 1) denying China the first island chain, and 2) denying them the free use of the sea beyond that point. Our efforts in both those regards need to include diplomatic, economic, and military components. We have taken our eye off the ball to focus on the MidEast for 20-odd years while China has outflanked us diplomatically and economically, and we have some significant catching up to do. It's still doable, but in south Texas terms, we need to get high behind it in a hurry. My thoughts about strategy and fleet design are based around those concepts.
As far as Russia, which I see as a lesser threat than China but a threat nevertheless, I think any conflict would basically be a land war in Europe, and the Navy's role would be 1) protect convoys of troops, equipment, and supplies across the Atlantic, 2) bottle up the Russian fleet in the eastern Mediterranean and Baltic, and 3) close down the GIUK gap to Russian submarines and surface ships.
One other point about the Lightning Carrier question. Note that I am only considering them as interim fixes until we can get more real carriers built. I figure it will take 10-15 year to start getting a Kitty/Midway conventional CV into the fleet, and that is about how much remaining life the LHAs/LHDs have. Since they are virtually useless in an amphib assault (and since as a result the Marines have pretty much abandoned amphib assaults) I figure we might as well get some use out of them to plug a gap. They are not the equal of a CVN, and I have no illusions about that. But in company with a CVN, the big carrier can cover a lot of their shortcomings, and if they can carry helos and F35Bs they can free up a bunch of deck space on the CVNs to carry larger air wings. It's not a great solution, and I don't pretend that it is, but it's probably more useful than a hole in the water, and certainly more useful than an amphib that can't do amphibious assaults.
Delete"But in company with a CVN, the big carrier can cover a lot of their shortcomings,"
DeleteGood grief, NO! A limited, constrained 'carrier' added to a CVN doesn't enhance the CVN, it pulls down the CVN. This would be analogous to adding a high school basketball player to a professional team. The high school player doesn't add anything to the pro team, he pulls the overall effectiveness of the pro team down.
By having to split and further spread the CVN's AEW, EW, and tankers to 'cover a lot of [the] shortcomings' of the lightning carrier, the overall effectiveness of the CVN is diluted and decreased. At best, the handful of limited capability aircraft on the lightning carrier can defend their own carrier. The lightning carrier would exist to defend its existence … the self-licking ice cream cone.
@CDR. The problem is you not seeing and many of us aren't and maybe many are thinking I'm pushing it BUT does the USN still want carriers at all?!?
ReplyDeleteI'm not so sure USN isn't seeing FORD problems and series as a blessing in disguise. We probably looking at 4 FORDS and 4 Nimitz left before we blink. Then comes the moment of truth: with what does USN replace those 4 Nimitz class left?!? More FORDs that don't work? Some small carrier that USN never wanted or liked the idea of? Something else? I'm leaning towards NOTHING or something else. Think I'm joking? Who would have thought 10 years ago that USMC would be out of the beach assault biz?!? You are trying to fix something because you still want our military to work and have the best gear...Is that true of what services are thinking right now?!? Bet most of us here, grew up and raised during Cold WAR, served during Cold WAR,remember when a USN Task Force moved in, sh#t was about to get real, Soviets were the THREAT,etc,etc....is that the case today? Is there a carrier constituency left inside DoD? Are they still really wanted? Politicans don't care: they just worry about the jobs, if USN says we can ditch carriers but save the jobs with something else, Politicans will ditch them: save lots of money and keep the jobs, they ok with that. PUBLIC? They don't care, the average American thinks: "just take our money and make it work, leave me alone", we really a very tiny minority that follow this stuff. Newer generation, Cold WAR is already ancient history! Carriers are seen as old relics.
What is USN going after now? Networks, AI, SMALL, UNMANNED, etc....thats not a CARRIER! Carriers are the complete opposite of what USN wants today! When I'm looking at my crystal ball, I see USN having no problem replacing those big carriers with a bunch of small to very small carriers for UAVs and drones, I could see even going for even more decentralized air and just spreading the air elements across the fleet and not even having those smallish carriers!!!
"@CDR. The problem is you not seeing and many of us aren't and maybe many are thinking I'm pushing it BUT does the USN still want carriers at all?!?"
DeleteI'm not sure the USN still wants to be able to fight and win a war any more. It certainly seems to me that an organization intent on warfighting and winning would have a much greater urgency about being prepared to do precisely that.
It appears, to me atleast, that the PLAN is progressing forward with their carriers while we are going the other direction. Is there funding to build more than first four? Is the Navy totally committed to replacing the Nimitz-class with the Ford-class (well at least attempt to)?
ReplyDeleteI don't think it helps the Ford's case that the size of carrier air wings has already been paired down, so maybe a smaller carrier is legitimate.
Allow me to toss out an old blog post of mine that ComNavOps may choose as a future post. If the Ford Class fails, as evidence shows, and a four carrier gap appears, what to do? One option, move two carrier air wings ashore overseas. Yes, the USAF can do land based missions, but they can't do ASW nor focus on anti-ship missions. Most aircraft missions during World War II in the Pacific were flown from land bases.
ReplyDeleteHere is the old post that considers the option of scrapping two carriers, but keeping two CAWs overseas.
Mar 19, 2013 - Cut Two Carriers!
Yet another article has highlighted our Navy's infatuation with huge aircraft carriers: At What Cost a Carrier? Our Navy halved its overall fleet since the end of the Cold War, but still has eleven ultra-expensive super carriers, plus twelve large STOL carriers used by the Marines. Precision anti-ship missiles have improved in quality and quantity, while the number of escort ships available to protect carriers has shrunk. In addition to deadly submarines and long-range cruise missiles, long-range ballistic anti-ship missiles have appeared, such as the Chinese DF-21. Two were successfully tested against a carrier-size target last January. (results below)
Such missiles are difficult to counter since they strike at Mach 5 and hitting them head-on with a missile is nearly impossible. Proximity fuse anti-aircraft weaponry are of little value because of their high speed and the incoming missile doesn't need a warhead, just a solid long-rod penetrator used by anti-tank missiles. Just the impact of a large solid spear at Mach 5 on a carrier deck may prove catastrophic.
As I noted in my June 24, 2012 blog, aircraft carriers are powder kegs packed with fuel and ammo. A single solid missile slicing through several decks would explode or ignite something, which may explode something else, and may set off a chain of explosions that bursts the ship, killing all 6000 sailors aboard. Rather than early decommissioning of another 30 ships, our Navy should immediately decommission two supercarriers this year. This would instantly solve its sequester budget problems and rebalance the fleet.
However, our Navy should keep the two carrier air wings. Everyone forgets that most airpower used in the Pacific during World War II operated from land bases, and our military has several strategic airbases around the world where naval aviation can base aircraft for sea control missions. While fixed airbases are easy to target, they are huge and can't be sunk. A missile hit on an airfield usually just causes a big hole that can be patched in a few hours. I'd place one "shipless" carrier air wing in the Pacific and one the Mediterranean/Persian Gulf region.
G2mil, just a quick note … this comment fell into the blog spam folder. Several times a day I check that folder and redirect the legitimate posts but people sometimes wonder where their comment has gone and why it won't appear. This has been an occasional problem that seems to come and go. Unfortunately, I have no control over the spam folder settings in Blogger so I can't do anything about other than check as frequently as I can.
DeleteMy apologies for any inconvenience. Rest assured that any comment will appear even if it's delayed a bit!
Do you have any interest in updating this and presenting it as a new guest-post?
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI had trouble posting because it would not take since it was too long for a comment. I can update/e-mail it for a guest post if you send me an address to submit editorg2mil@gmail.com.
DeleteCheck your email !
Delete