Here’s just a fun little thought exercise. The fleet is decidedly unbalanced. The only surface ship we have is the Burke
class which is incapable of effective anti-surface or anti-submarine
combat. It’s a pure anti-air and
Tomahawk land attack platform by capability and training. The fleet is missing various types of ships
with different capabilities and costs.
If you were the Chief of Naval Operations and had enough
extra funding to build one additional ship type, what would it be, and why?
ComNavOps’ choice would be a small ASW corvette … or maybe a
true destroyer like a modernized Fletcher … or maybe an 8” gunned cruiser … or maybe
a Midway/Forrestal size carrier … or …
Hmm, this may be harder than I thought to pick just one
type.
Maybe, despite ComNavOps’ proof of uselessness, you’d pick a
lightning carrier or a sea control carrier?
Maybe a class of SSGNs? Or maybe
you’re a believer in small missile boats?
Wednesday, July 24, 2024
What’s Missing?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
ASW Corvette: Focused capabilities to be great at this job and protect itself, while being cheap enough for numbers
ReplyDelete• 32 knot speed (fast enough to keep up with carriers)
• 5,000 mile range
• Medium Freq Hull Sonar (better for shallow waters)
• Low Freq Towed and VDS Sonar
• Basic 3D Radar
• 8 box angled launchers for ASROC or NSM (not sure this is a thing yet…) 6 ASROC / 2 NSM typical loadout
• 2 triple Mk 54 torpedo launchers
• 57mm gun (radar fire control option)
• 21 cell SeaRam launcher
• Phalanx CWIS
• Decoy launchers and basic ECM suite
I like all of that except the speed. A corvette is not a carrier group escort. Open ocean ASW escort would be provided by a true destroyer.
DeleteAs an example, the Buckley class DE could only do 24 kts and was not normally a fast carrier escort. Above about 20 kts, the cost for each additional knot of speed climbs rapidly and, for a corvette's duties, is not needed.
The FFG-7 class handled carrier escort just fine, even if it wasn't specifically designed to do so originally. Sure it could top 30 kts if needed but battlegroups don't travel that fast except in short bursts - no one (other than the carrier) can afford the fuel expenditure rate. I guess I'm making a couple points here: (1) you don't need to be able to do 32 kts to be useful to support a carrier group, (2) if you DO want that top end speed, it need not be expensive if you put it on a small enough platform. The FFG-7 could make 30+ with two LM-2500s; the only thing expensive about that was the fuel consumption. It was otherwise a pretty straightforward and reliable engineering plant. We don't need to LCS this thing.
DeleteMy final point would be: I think an ASW focused vessel like this would be very useful in a carrier group - and likely would be pressed into such duty anyway, see the FFG-7 - so may as well assume that.
ComNavOps is on the record suggesting the Indian Kamorta class is an ASW corvette design with promise. The Kamortas are about 3,300 tons and capable of 25+ knots. Also (according to Wikipedia anyway!) they also routinely operate with Indian carrier groups. So, 32 knots top speed isn't necessary, either to be an effective ASW platform OR operate with carriers. There's not really a trade off there.
Delete"The FFG-7 class handled carrier escort just fine"
DeleteThe frigate is not a corvette which was your proposal. A frigate had the speed and endurance to act as an escort to a degree.
"battlegroups don't travel that fast except"
Actually, the escorts need to. They don't travel in a straight line at a constant speed. Escorts are constantly repositioning around the screen and conducting sprint-and-drift maneuvers. If you're going to drift for awhile, you have to be able to sprint to get back into position.
So, a frigate could work as part of a carrier group. A corvette could not.
"Kamorta class is an ASW corvette design with promise."
DeleteYes!
" routinely operate with Indian carrier groups."
An Indian carrier group is not a US Navy carrier group. I have no idea what Indian groups do or what their requirements are but US carrier groups need fast escorts that are capable of keeping up with the group in the open ocean.
"32 knots top speed isn't necessary, either to be an effective ASW platform OR operate with carriers."
Correct about speed and ASW. Incorrect about speed and carrier escort.
Good discussion on speed and fittings.
DeleteThe arguments for ~25 kt top speed make sense (good enough for anything but CVN escort duties while keeping cost/size under control for numbers). But that leaves carrier groups (half the Navy?) without low-end ASW escorts. Everything is a trade-off.
Speaking of trade-offs, good arguments could be made (have been made by ComNavOps) for a 76mm gun, heavy-weight torpedoes and an RBU-like system. I tried to think of a "good " design to keep costs down (Mk 48s torpedoes cost 5x or 6x the lightweight Mk 54s) and enable high numbers, knowing it's not the "ultimate" ASW corvette.
Many would also want a helicopter with hangar, but this soon becomes a Connie without the Aegis... Similar capability, plus one part-time helo, at double the cost.
"this soon becomes a Connie without the Aegis"
DeleteI disagree! Again: look at the Perrys. Nothing like a Burke or Spruance. Much smaller. Still brought excellent ASW capabilities (basically built around a towed array and dual helo hanger). And much more flexible (smaller draft....) Also: cheaper. Built in large numbers.
You can develop a excellent ASW-focused ship in the 3000-4000 ton range that includes aviation facilities. You'll just have to lose some other stuff. Which is ok, because this isn't a multirole ship!
"A frigate could work as part of a carrier group. A corvette could not."
DeleteI think we're getting unnecessarily wrapped up around nomenclature. Ship classifications are highly flexible - there are no rules. Some navies' frigates are bigger than others' destroyers, some destroyers are basically what we would consider cruisers (looking at you, Japan). The LCS is a totally made up ship type; most countries would call it a corvette (or a ferry!). Traditionally, the Royal Navy has gone a whole different direction and classified escorts based on their role -- not size (frigates being ASW-focused; destroyers anti-air). And so on....
But, if it helps, I'll amend my proposal to call for a 4,000 ton ASW "frigate" with aviation capabilities capable of ~28 kt top speed which, I assure you, based on my years of operating with carrier groups, would integrate in a battle group just fine!
"getting unnecessarily wrapped up around nomenclature"
DeleteNomenclature is vitally important in that it reveals a mindset. A focused, precise understanding and use of the proper nomenclature indicates that one has a proper understanding of the proper and appropriate role for each ship type. Those who would incorrectly fling the ship classifications around and claim it really doesn't matter are likely creating over-spec'ed, do-everything, unaffordable vessels.
Consider the Zumwalt. The Navy would have us believe it's a 16,000 ton destroyer. That's absurd and its Concept of Operations (to the tiny extent that it had one) reveals that the Navy didn't know what they wanted it to do and, indeed, they wound up with a several billion dollar paperweight that had no purpose. Had they considered the appropriate role for a destroyer, they would have realized that they were designing a failure on multiple levels.
So, as a label, I don't care what you call a ship. Call a battleship a canoe, for all I care. However, as an indicator of mindset, nomenclature is vitally important.
Yeah for sure I agree this SHOULD be the case. And sometimes it is. I think the reality is is that it’s more complicated and we haven’t even got to political factors (let’s remember that the RN Illustrious class were technically “thru deck cruisers”, and Japan similarly still has no carriers. Although they kinda do). Anyway, maybe something for a different time.
DeleteImproper use of nomenclature also indicates a high likelihood of obfuscation. The Navy tries to 'hide' a 16,000 ton cruiser as a destroyer to obscure some of the Congressional oversight and attention. The LCS was, at one point, being called a frigate by the Navy in an attempt to make it seem more than the toothless, useless, steaming pile of ship that it was. And so on. When nomenclature is being used improperly there's almost always a reason why and it's almost always a bad reason.
DeleteUpdated Spruance class. 2 5 inch guns or 1 5 inch and 1 8 inch. 2 ciws, 2 ram. 21" tubes out the stern. Anti-sub and anti-surface role.
ReplyDeleteLove the updated Spruance concept.
DeleteGuns present an interesting question. Bigger is better but a single 8" gun is of limited use in most roles. Naval gun support isn't satisfied by one 8" gun. If we want to provide gun support, we need a true cruiser (or battleship!) with 9x 8" guns. Same for general land attack. Anti-surface using guns again requires many guns, not just one.
I guess what I'm saying is match the weapon choice to anticipated missions/roles.
While it's tough to choose just one- I definitely have a list to choose from!! (In no particular order)
ReplyDelete*ASW frigate (hull and towed sonar)
*ASuW/Land Attack Destroyer (twin 8in mounts, TLAM/LRASM
*SSGN (equivalent of current, but shrunk as possible. Maybe Virginia or LA with missile section??)
*Revamped AAW Destroyer/CG (AEGIS, VLS, 4-6 CIWS/Goalkeeper, 2-4 RAM, NO sonar, no helo facilities)
*ASW Destroyer/Squadron Leader (Hull and towed sonar, 5-6+ helos)
*Destroyer Tender with robust nesting and VLS reload capability
*Troopship with embarked landing craft
**honorable mention:
*Nimitz class restart
Way to choose just one!
DeleteYou're right, it is hard to choose. :)
It's tough. But if I HAVE TO... I'd go with the SSGNs. Offensive, survivable firepower. Of course that'd also require a spool-up of the TLAM (or a modern replacement) production line.
DeleteSecond choice would be the revamped AAW Destroyer, to allow current Burkes to carry a more offense-centric VLS load out since they're the shooters...
It's tough. But if I HAVE TO... I'd go with the SSGNs. Offensive, survivable firepower. Of course that'd also require a spool-up of the TLAM (or a modern replacement) production line.
DeleteSecond choice would be the revamped AAW Destroyer, to allow current Burkes to carry a more offense-centric VLS load out since they're the shooters...
"ComNavOps’ choice would be a small ASW corvette … or maybe a true destroyer like a modernized Fletcher … or maybe an 8” gunned cruiser … or maybe a Midway/Forrestal size carrier … or …
ReplyDeleteMaybe, despite ComNavOps’ proof of uselessness, you’d pick a lightning carrier or a sea control carrier? Maybe a class of SSGNs? Or maybe you’re a believer in small missile boats?"
I'm going to say all of the above. Where to get the money?
1) Cancel the Constellations. I still think the USN's idea is to replace 22 Ticos with 20 Connies and call that an even trade since the Connies have Aegis, but the decreased number of missiles makes that a huge mischaracterization. Instead build a bunch of ASW frigates (agree with ComNavOps that this is #1) and some GP (ASuW/ASW) escorts, using FREMM or one of the other Euro designs as a basis.
2) Cancel the large expensive LHA/LHD/LPD-17s and build an amphib force around more and smaller ships. If your "amphib force" does not include LSTs, you don't have an amphib force. Build 3 LSTs and 2 LPA/LKAs for the cost of one LPD-17 and build 1 smaller LHA/LHD (like Spanish Juan Carlos), 1 French Mistral LPH, and 1 British Albion LPD/LSD for the cost of one of the USN's ginormous LHA/LHDs. The LSTs and LKA/LPAs could operate close in like real amphibs and the others could support the operation from further out until the beach and inland areas are secure. If you had air support and NGFS, you could still do opposed assaults.
3) Speaking of NGFS, I would like to see some cruisers with 8” guns and some battleships with 16” guns, plus arm any new destroyers with at least 5” guns. The cruisers would also carry enough missile cells to replace the Ticos and would be based on the WWII proposed flight deck cruisers, with the flight deck to operate 2-3 helos and 100-200 UAVs.
4) Cancel the Fords. I definitely want some Midway/Kitty smaller conventional carriers. You can build a Nimitz and a Midway/Kitty for the cost of one Ford. I'd like to see 12 Nimitzes and 12 Midway/Kittys for 12 two-carrier CVBGs convertible to 6 of Marc Mitscher's four-carrier CTFs. While building those CVs, convert the current LHA/LHDs to interim lightning carriers. Add ski jumps and replace the Marine berthing and cargo spaces with hangar and aircraft support spaces, and they could probably carry 35-40 F-35Bs (they carry 20 now). Operate them in tandem with CVNs for two-carrier CVBGs, with the CVNs providing what the lightning carriers lack (AEW, refueling) and 35-40 F-35Bs adding some not insignificant airpower. They are useless as amphibs and at worst would be at least equal to anybody else’s current carriers.
5) Convert the other useless amphibs, the LPD-17s, to the ABM/BMD ships that HII has proposed for the same hulls. This covers another glaring weakness.
6) The proposed next generation SSN at $6-7B apiece are simply too expensive. Build Virginias at $3-4B each, and updated Ohio-based SSGNs ($5B). Also build some AIP SSKs ($750MM) to do littoral and choke point duties and free up the SSNs for blue water ops.
7) The other area where the current USN is totally inadequate is mine warfare Build two kinds on MCM ships—a mother ship for helo and drone sweeps that would look something like a smaller LSD/LPD, and a hunter based perhaps on the new Dutch/Belgian design. The sweeps would sweep to an acceptable level of risk for military operations and hunting would follow up to achieve 100% clearance. Both ship types would carry ComNavOps’s seek and destroy UUVs that I have called Wild Walrus.
8) Finally, if littoral warfare is going to be a priority, build some ships that are actually useful in the littorals, instead of the so-called LCSs that aren’t. Build some ASW corvettes with sonars optimized for shallow water, and some gun/missile land attack patrol boats, to go with the MCMs and SSKs.
I realize that this goes beyond picking one ship type, but I think all are needed and I have showed where to free up funds to pay for them.
"I'm going to say all of the above."
DeleteYou may be missing the concept of 'choose one' ?
"using FREMM or one of the other Euro designs as a basis."
I could do an entire post on this. It appears that ALL of the European designs are deficient relative to the USN damage control standards, if nothing else. They also appear to be lacking stealth, weapons density, and passive sensor fits for modern warfare. This may explain much of the apparent 'cheapness' compared to US warship costs.
In short, I'm not seeing any value in European designs. To be fair, I'm not seeing much value in US designs, either!
"CVNs providing what the lightning carriers lack"
You've got that backward. The CVN wouldn't be supplying what the lightning carrier lacks; the lightning carrier would be subtracting from what a carrier group needs. Small carriers don't add to the group, they subtract from the group's requirements.
"35-40 F-35Bs adding some not insignificant airpower."
Setting aside the extremely optimistic magnitude of those aircraft numbers, 'B' models add little to airpower. As the Ford program manager noted, the 'B' lacks the legs and carry weight to add to the group's firepower. Instead, it subtracts from the group's capabilities by requiring many more tanker sorties to support the short legs and light carry weights (a ramp, if that's your vision, is NOT equivalent to a catapult in terms of getting the maximum weight of weapons aloft. Ramp jets need to take off lighter which means lighter firepower and/or less fuel which, in turn, requires more tankers for support. F-35Bs don't add to, they subtract from.
"a hunter based perhaps on the new Dutch/Belgian design"
You realize that's one-at-a-time mine removal, right? And that is effective in a combat scenario. It's fine for leisurely, peacetime work but not for, say, clearing transit lanes and assault lanes in an amphibious assault. Modern MCM is unwisely focused on one-at-a-time mine hunting instead of high volume sweeping. I would also note that we not only don't have a helo capable of mine sweeping, we don't have any plans on the book to get one. It is also highly suspect to expect helos to survive during combat MCM.
"land attack patrol boats"
What kind of useful and effective land attack weapons would a patrol boat have and what kinds of missions would it be used for? This seems like it's teetering close to 'build something neat and then try to find a mission for it'.
"What kind of useful and effective land attack weapons would a patrol boat have and what kinds of missions would it be used for? This seems like it's teetering close to 'build something neat and then try to find a mission for it'."
DeleteAs you've written before:
https://navy-matters.blogspot.com/2019/03/mk-vi-gunboat-diplomacy-story.html
Unless you've moved on from your previous work?
I'd Def go the other way with the LHAs. For their cost, they're of negligible use for a landing, and contribute almost nothing to a CVBG. I'd scrap the Lightning carrier idea entirely, and return them to amphib ships with helo capability only. But there's a caveat- in order to make the Marines relevant again, we would have to completely revamp amphib doctrine, and build the Navy accordingly. Meaning- we have to create the ability for LH platforms to get close to shore again. The Marines have said they're out of the amphib landing business, but I dont see much of a need for them if that's the case. So NGFS and CAS capabilities (not from an LHA) have to be reconstituted. We'd have to increase the amount of landing craft carried by the various ships, so we'd need smaller, simpler, nestable craft that can be carried on the decks (the flight decks of LPDS??). Honestly a return to basic troop ships with organic landing craft seems like a good idea. The port seizure mission is a good one for the Marines, but we need the ability to get in close and put them ashore quickly in large numbers. The Lightning Carrier doesn't help the Marines close the distance OR overcome the connector issue.
Delete"As you've written before:"
DeleteThat story post involved riverine type patrol boats. Most people who use the term 'patrol boat' are referring to boats like the Ambassador Mk III or Cyclone which are several times larger. There's nothing wrong with a riverine size boat - and a lot to like about it - but it's emphatically not a generic land attack platform. In the post story, you noted that the target was, literally, a water's edge target.
One could imagine a purpose designed, land attack, riverine size boat with, say, a battery of AMOS mortars but, again, the range is limited to just a few miles and targeting would be problematic. Again, you noted that the boats in my story were targeting using Mk1 sensors.
""I'm going to say all of the above."
DeleteYou may be missing the concept of 'choose one' ?"
Actually, I think I made it pretty clear that the ASW frigate would be #1 for me. If that was not clear, I apologize, let me state that for the recod now.
My point was more that the USN seems intent on expensive but useless platforms, and cancelling them to make room for more useful ones is a good idea across the board.
"It appears that ALL of the European designs are deficient relative to the USN damage control standards, if nothing else. They also appear to be lacking stealth, weapons density, and passive sensor fits for modern warfare. This may explain much of the apparent 'cheapness' compared to US warship costs."
DeleteAgain, I don't disagree, and for that reason would just use European designs as a starting point. What I wouldn't do is what the USN has done with the Constellations, to turn a fairly decent GP escort into an Aegis platform without enough missile slots to be an adequate AAW ship. The only reason I can think of is to pass them off as numerical replacements for the Ticos, which they are not.
I think I've made it pretty clear in prior posts that I would seriously upgrade damage control, add weapons, and reduce essentially wasted habitability space in order to reduce superstructure, resulting in less high weight, more topside weapons, and a more stealthy profile. I realize that my modified FREMM woud cost more than the stated price of the FREMMs, but would probably be cheaper, and certainly more useful, than a Connie.
With respect to the LHA/LHD conversions to lightning carriers, they are virtually useless as amphibs. You certainly could not run an opposed assault off them. Not only are they useless, they are incredibly expensive.
DeleteThe only way I can see to get any return for a huge and otherwise wasted sunk cost is to make the lightning carrier useful. I realize that concept has itsb shortcomings, as you have reported frequently. Right now, with considerable internal space devoted to Marine berthing and equipment, the LHA/LHDs carry around 20 F-35s in the lightning carrier role. If that space could be repurposed as hangar and aircraft maintenance space, they could presumably haul a bunch more F-35Bs. 40 may be optimistic, but 30 should be a minimum, and 35 would seem possible.
I am not sure how well a true lightning carrier could be integrated into carrier ops, but some realistic traing should prove up the point one way or another, and at least give carriers some experience operating in pairs (which is preparatory to operating in mischer's 4-carrier CTFs).
Botom line, a lightning carrier with 35 F-35Bs is nowhere near the equal of a Nimitz, but itwould probably overwhelm anybody else's carrier--except maybe the Brits or French, neither of whom (along with Nimitzes) I would expect them to have to fight.
In any event, they would only be an interim fix. It would probably take 10-15 years for the Kity/Midway CVs to join the fleet in any numbers, and by that time both the LHA/LHDs and F-35Bs should be nearing the ends of their useful lives.
It may be trying to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear, but at least is a possibily useful application of an otherwise huge but useless sunk cost.
"You realize that's one-at-a-time mine removal, right? And that is effective in a combat scenario."
DeleteAgain, note what I am proposing. Two types of ships--one for drone/helo sweeping that would be useful to achieve a desired level of risk for combat operations, and the other a hunter to come in afterwards and achieve 100% clearance. The reason the Dutch and Belgians (and Germans) put so much emphasis on hunting is that their primary interest is keeping the mouths of the Rhine 100% clear for merchant shipping, and hunting is the only way to get to 100%.
Sweeping would be used for combat operations, and hunting to keep domestic commercial ports open.
"What kind of useful and effective land attack weapons would a patrol boat have and what kinds of missions would it be used for?"
DeletePerhaps patrol boat is a misnomer. I'm actually thinking about a combination of what you have desribed in your proposed fleet as an Assault Support Ship and the old LSMR from Vietnam days. The ission would be as you describe in your proposed fleet, "This ship stands close in to provide ground troops with very close range fire support and counter-rocket/artillery/mortar protection"
I'm guessing it could be as large as a Fletcher. You desribe the Assault Support Ship as having "5x 5”/62 gun, 1x C-RAM, Counter fire radar." I would maybe reduce the 5"/62s to 3x and replace a couple of them with a missile deck outfitted similarly to the LSMRs, say 10 × twin continuous loading 5" SS rocket launchers (range 5 NM). The LSMRs also had 4 × 4".2 mortars, but they would be presumably too short range (500 yards) to be useful. Instead, might mount 2 Phalanx.
"make the lightning carrier useful."
DeleteYou don't seem to grasp that the lightning carrier doesn't add to a carrier group, it subtracts from it. The lightning carrier can't even defend itself and requires subtracting resources (EW, AEW, tankers) from the big carrier in order to even do that.
You're failing to grasp that in WWII our fleet carriers carried 90+ aircraft. Our large carriers today carry 35-40 combat aircraft. Even four large carriers are a very substandard combat force. Subtracting two and substituting two undersized lightning carriers with short legged and short-weaponed F-35Bs is a net loss of an already short-handed carrier group.
Pulling precious EW/AEW/tankers from the main carriers in order to support a useless mini-carrier is illogical.
Operating two carriers in close proximity (the 2-carrier CVBG) would mean that the AEW requirement would be the same as for one carrier.
DeleteTanking would be a problem, but that's a generic USN problem. I've proposed bringing back a squadron of 12 S-3s or equivalents-6 to do Patrol/ASW, 5 to be tankers, and one for COD. That would go a long way to help the tanking problem. Also the F-35Bs could take on the primary CAP role which reduces their need for legs and frees the long-range aircraft for longer missions.
If a CVN air group includes only an ansurdly low 35-40 combat aircraft, then adding 35 or so F-35Bs has to represent some nontrivial additional capability.
Worst case scenario, if the lightning carrier operted alone, it would still be more capable than any enemy carrier it is likely to meet.
I'm not all saying that it is a perfect answer. The limitayions you mention are very real. But when you have a bunch of big expensive ships that are basically worthless in their primary mission area, it seems to me logical to see if they could add value elsewhere. It seems to make sense to try it and see. If it doesn't work, then park the LHA/LHDs and sell them for scrap. At best they are taking up a few thousand sailors who would be better used on something that works.
Let me be clear, ComNavOps, I'm not proposing a harrier carrier as some great solution, primarily because I agree with all the weaknesses you identify.
DeleteBut an LHA/LHD (and for that matter an LPD-17) is a super-expensive ship that is useless in an amphibious warfare scenario because it has to remain far offshore, from which there are no viable connectors. If any value is to be realized from them, they will have to be repurposed to some other use. So I am thinking it may be useful to convert the LHA/LHDs to harrier carriers and the LPD-17s to the ABM/BMD ship that HII has proposed for the same hull.
The ABM/BMD ship clearly addresses a need that is currently not being met. Whether the lightning carrier can be integrated with the CVNs, like the jeep carriers were with the fast carriers in WWII, is still an open question, but in the interest of getting some value out of them I would take a look at the harrier carrier. If that is not viable, then it's time to park them and turn them into razor blades.
Whatever we do with the LHA/LHDs and LPD-17s, it is time to realize that the USN's choice of "amphibious" platforms has pretty much gutted the Marines' ability to perform amphibious assaults.
"Operating two carriers in close proximity (the 2-carrier CVBG) would mean that the AEW requirement would be the same as for one carrier."
DeleteI don't think so. 'Close' doesn't mean separated by 50 yds. Close is something on the order of 5 miles separation to allow for airspace deconfliction and operating room. Thus, the ASW coverage are increases. It may not double but it certainly does increase.
"F-35Bs could take on the primary CAP role which reduces their need for legs and frees the long-range aircraft for longer missions."
Somewhat, but no. The 'longer missions' require all the EW, tanking, and AEW support they can get. Subtracting EW, AEW, and tanking to support the CAP mission detracts/subtracts from the 'longer missions'.
I keep hammering this and I'll continue to do so until you grasp that a lightning/smaller carrier doesn't add to a CVN, it subtracts from it. You have a fixation on counting assets instead of operational thinking.
"adding 35 or so F-35Bs has to represent some nontrivial additional capability."
Again, no, because it subtracts from the overall capability of the group by consuming EW, AEW, and tanking resources.
"Worst case scenario, if the lightning carrier operted alone, it would still be more capable than any enemy carrier it is likely to meet."
And you'd be correct if wars were fought one carrier versus one carrier. Carriers don't exist to fight each other. They exist to carry out missions (generally offensive). The Doolittle raid wasn't a mission against Japan's carriers. It was a strike mission against Japan's homeland. Sure, a carrier might, on rare occasions, bump up against an enemy's carrier but that's not how you assess the value of a carrier. You're too caught up in comparing numbers of assets in stead of assessing operational capability in all forms of carrier missions.
Currently, operationally, we have a huge carrier advantage over China but if war were to begin today, that advantage would offer little benefit. Despite China having no true carrier, they still overmatch us in the operational theater thanks to their land based air, ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, surface navy, etc. Comparing a lightning carrier of ours to the next 28 navies combined is the weakest, most ill-advised type of analysis possible.
"when you have a bunch of big expensive ships that are basically worthless in their primary mission area, it seems to me logical to see if they could add value elsewhere."
DeleteNo, no, NO! Wrong, wrong, WRONG! You're fixated, again, on counting assets. The real question is not what can we do with x number of paid for amphibious ships that have no useful purpose. The real question is can we make better use of the many hundreds of millions of dollars of annual operating cost of those useless amphibs and can we make better use of the tens of thousands of sailors that man those useless amphibs.
Every Burke (and, eventually, Constellation) that puts to sea does so with a significant number of gapped billets. Those amphib sailors could fill those gaps and bring those hundreds of ships back to full manning. That's a far better use for the amphibs than trying to pretend they offer a few F-35Bs that will make a difference.
Those hundreds of millions of dollars of operating costs could be much better spent on almost anything else (mine warfare, MCM, ASW corvettes, anti-ship missiles, etc.).
Ask the wrong question and you'll get the wrong answer, for sure. Ask the right question and you have a chance to get the right answer. Start asking the right questions!
"because it has to remain far offshore"
DeleteNo it doesn't! That's absurd. Remaining far offshore is a choice the Navy has made, not some sort of inherent characteristic or requirement of the LHA/LHD/amphibs. We can sit at the horizon perfectly well. Another 20 miles out makes almost no difference to the anti-ship missiles or the Aegis defensive system. Aegis was designed and built to counter swarms of missiles. If we can't sit 10-20 miles off and handle the occasional missile then we need to seriously re-evaluate our entire fleet. This is just an example of a bunch of cowardly admirals being unwilling to risk their careers by saying we need to stand in close and FIGHT instead of cowering offshore beyond reach. Review the risk/reward balance of operations in WWII.
A true, small (<4000 tons) ASW-focused frigate. Not the Constellations, which are basically jack of all trades, master of none mini-Burkes. Envision a modernized FFG-7 class, less the SM-1.
ReplyDeleteWhat would be the weapons fit? The Perrys were somewhat lacking in ASW weapons and sensors.
DeleteThe FFG-7 had both fixed and towed sonar arrays, two helos, and 2 x triple lightweight tubes. They weren't that shabby at ASW! They were primarily intended as open ocean convoy escorts after all. Actually: in its core aspects the FFG-7 had most of the capabilities listed in "son of a sailors" list above. (Add two helos, then subtract the ASW box launcher and VDS sonar -- they're about the same).
DeleteWhat would I pick? I'd start with "son of a sailors" list, its a good one. But like you I'd delete the speed requirement (sub-30 kts is fine - and would still allow the ship to operate with carriers in most situations as needed, as noted in other comments above).
I'd delete NSM and the 3D radar - not against them in principle, but we're going for ASW optimized and could use the savings elsewhere.
I would add a helo - best standoff ASW weapon out there (and also provides the side benefit of some anti-surface and sea surveillance capability, especially if you also want to use for missions like anti-piracy). I know you aren't a big fan of helicopters. We just will have to disagree on its usefulness there. I'll take it 10 out of 10 times, especially for ASW.
To be a really good ASW platform, a Perry (or modernized Perry) would need a VDS, multi-function towed array, multi-function (or multiple) hull mounted sonar, RBU-type close in weapon, heavy torpedoes instead of lightweight torps, some sort of ASROC (hopefully improved range!) wake suppression technology, acoustic suppression coatings, etc.
Delete"I know you aren't a big fan of helicopters. "
You could not be more wrong! I'm a huge fan of helos for ASW. I'm not a fan of putting helos on every ship. Corvettes, for example, don't need a helo. Their job isn't actually anti-submarine - it's detection and suppression of submarines. Other platforms will supply the kill. If you aren't the ASW "kill" platform then helos simply add size and cost and make the platform unaffordable.
I would agree with all of your weps and sensor loadout. Yes. All possible on a sub-4000 ton vessel too.
DeleteI think there's some splitting of hairs here The Kamorta class corvette is 3,300 tons and has very good ASW capabilities - including a helo. It's just 3,300 tons and we agree the specs are pretty good - so I don't see a "helo penalty". Maybe some speed was sacrificed? I don't know. My point is: the performance and cost tradeoff that you're implying some with adding a helo simply may not be there. (Which would be a good thing! Your ASW optimized ship ideally has a helo.)
1) I do like your concentration on surface ASW.
ReplyDelete2) Mine mitigation off our ports should also be concerning.
3) For Carrier aircraft refueling , consider a " light " carrier as a refueling ship with it's air complement of CAP fighters. A pilot can land for a rest period while another replaces him or her.
"A pilot can land for a rest period while another replaces him or her."
DeleteUnfortunately, modern aircraft require as much or more 'rest' as the pilots. The maintenance hours per flight hour are substantial. You can't just land, hot swap a pilot and relaunch.
First choice is the corvette, with the addition of anti-aircraft missile capacity - say maybe 50 of these ships. THEN, a dozen SSGN's - could they be heavily refurbished Trident subs with a budget of say $2b each to do the required work to get 20 years of additional life?
ReplyDelete"corvette, with the addition of anti-aircraft missile capacity"
DeleteBeyond a CIWS/SeaRAM, why? Corvettes lack both the radar/sensors, fire control, and VLS to be effective area air defense platforms. Adding that would enlarge both the hull and the cost to the point that they wouldn't be small, cheap corvettes any longer. They'd be frigates or destroyers.
Agree. This becomes a multirole ship. Short of close-in self defense, anti-air can't be the priority. That's what those 200 Burkes are for, right?
Delete"Short of close-in self defense, anti-air can't be the priority. That's what those 200 Burkes are for, right?"
DeleteExactly! Too few people are willing to let different ships each have their role. Everyone seems to want every ship to be able to do everything. That's how you price yourself out of a navy.
Good on you!
I was thinking self defense only, with more range that RAM missiles. Something like four VLS tubes quad packed. Was not thinking hard about radar and fire control. Is this a hole in defending a ship not having a system with longer legs?
DeleteApparently, almost no one can choose just one!
ReplyDelete"Apparently, almost no one can choose just one!"
DeleteOnly because the Navy is such a mess..
Sure seems like a updated FFG-7 with a new hull and slightly more ASW focus is the winner!
ReplyDeleteKind of makes one wonder why USN keeps going for these exquisite super expensive ship designs when it's pretty obvious that's not what's needed.....
Fun topic to think about. It would be nice if the navy could get its shipbuilding house in order. It wouldn’t be hard to develop an ASW corvettes (or frigate!)
ReplyDeleteLook at Constellation, you would know why. Supposedly, Navy would use a mature design (from Italy this time) to build frigates with specific missions only. Later, many asked to add this, that, .... result - big delay due to immature subsystems, components, plus need further design to host them all without sacrifice other performances - mission impossible.
ReplyDeleteFor my 10 peneth, I would say a mine clearing "System" is priority. If you are stuck in port however "clever" your SSN's CVN'S DDG's etc are they are not going to do anything. I say system rather than ship as I would suggest mother ships and disposable drones that are cheap and "die on contact" is the way forward. I mine that has exploded will not explode again. In war mines are relatively cheap and thus numerous so speed and quantity is key.
ReplyDeleteYou're quite right. A wise enemy could, with a relative handful of mines, paralyze the entire US navy and commercial shipping industry.
DeleteAlways with the services it is if I had more money, then I could cover up my, my peers, and predecessors ineptitude. How about not getting any new moeny, firing NAVSEA and getting folks in there that can build a ship for a reasonable price. Everything else goes down in proce while military hardware goes up, even when you don't change anything.
ReplyDeleteSome version of the Type-26 Frigates/Destroyers. Best, quietest ASW escort around, designed as a carrier escort and to operate alone in high threat environments. If you want the cheaper ones faster, the UK type 26 is in the water with a finished design, but no AEGIS/CEC. The Aussie Hunter class version gives you AEGIS and more Mk41s and is under construction, and the Canadian River class adds CEC and SPY and more US sourced electronics...
ReplyDeleteYou might be interested in this post on the Type 26 :
DeleteType 26 Global Combat Ship
I came to a somewhat different conclusion than you. See what you think.
Don't we already have our Type 26 in the Burkes?
Delete"Don't we already have our Type 26 in the Burkes?"
DeleteKind of but no. While the Burke is ASW-capable, in theory, they don't train for it and it would be foolish to risk a Burke in ASW work. The Burkes are strictly AAW and land attack (cruise missiles). We lack a true ASW destroyer or ASW escort.
I would bring back and update the WW2 PC/PCE (Patrol Craft Escort). These were under 180ft/ under 1000 ton ASW and patrol craft smaller and less heavily armed than a DE (which was corvette sized)
ReplyDeleteThe ops it would be made for is a mix of coastal ASW, Anti-drone , Anti-piracy, and as escort for merchant vessels within the EEZ.
It would be a modified version of a ship already in production, the Coast Guard's Fast Response cutter. It would be slightly lengthened amidships (more crew space) and have the forward deck reinforced for a weapon slightly heavier than the Mk38.
The boat launching section would be decked over and there will be two triple torpedo launchers (no reloads) and a small crane for the sonar. Yea, crane. This a small vessel the ASW sensors will be from an ASW vehicle even smaller--the SH60. The dipping sonar will be lowered over the side with a small crane, and the PCE will even have the ability to drop off--and pick up with the crane--sonobuoys. So sonobuoys can be reused during peacetime. Using an already existing sonar system also saves on development costs.
Forward it will have a navalized verson of the Army's M-SHORAD system. The M-SHORAD mounts a 4 stingers, two hellfire, a 30mm, a .30cal MG, radar and thermal sensors, and can engage air and surface targets day & night. That mix of weapons means it can engage drones, helicopters, small planes, plus surface drones, and vessels under 500 tons ( and the torpedoes can deal with larger ships).
Since the vessel is based on one not only in existance but in domestic production, using existing weapons and sensors, development should be short, sweet, and cheap. The current cost of an FRC is $65 million each, so if this version somehow costs 50% more (and it shouldn't) you get a vessel for just under 100 million that has a viable mission and the right equipment for a quarter of the cost of an LCS that doesn't.
Current cost of an FRC is now 100 million, unfortunately. Your ship and yard have limited growth potential to about 55m 180 feet. I want my corvette based on manned variants of OUSV Ranger/Mariner/Vanguard 194-206 feet or Damen's 6711/6911 (220-227') yacht support vessels. The yacht support vessels would need higher power versions of the engines for enough speed. The ships would be plug and play. I want Mk 70 launchers or ADLs. Modular davits for RHIBs or CUSVs. Aft flexibility for boat launch or to carry and deploy a Captas-4. At least enough flight deck for Vertrep and ability to use VTOL class 3 UAVs. I would need basic self defense w SEWIP-LIte and a decoy system which I hesitate to specify as we need some work in this area. I'd grab Mk 38 mod IV as the main gun and XM914 RWS-6 mounts for secondary as they can also field Stinger and Javelin. Cheap to get in the game with many available shipyards.
DeleteI want to build these in numbers and speed such the only people who know how many we have are those on our side with a need to know.
Destroyer tender. The fleet lacks the maintenance capacity for peacetime operations, so the extra maintainers are handy right now. Tenders will cut the wait time for ahips that need a simple refit. They also free up the crew from routine maintenance tasks which gives them time to train. In wartime, the tender's ability to bring a repair crew to a damaged ship where it is and without a fixed base will be invaluable.
ReplyDeleteGood idea!
DeleteDo two different corvettes count as one? :-)
ReplyDeleteOne corvette would be designed for convoy escort, accompanied by a helicopter carrier/corvette tender (not the same thing as a sea control ship). Another mission would be protecting friendly coasts in coordination with land-based ASW aircraft. Characteristics:
A bow-mounted sonar suitable for a small ship.
A towed array sonar.
A variable depth sonar. Possibly the CAPTAS-4, if it is compatible with a small ship. (This corvette should be smaller than either LCS design.)
One Oto Melara Super Rapid 76 mm gun with the Strales aiming system and some DART guided ammunition.
Two Mark 38 Mod 3 stabilized 25 mm chain guns with coaxial 7.62 mm chain guns in stabilized mounts.
One Vulcan Phalanx 20 mm Gatling gun.
Two or more GAU-19/A .50-caliber Gatling guns should be carried on board.
One Rolling Airframe Missile (RAM) launcher.
One 8-cell Mk41 VLS module quad-packed with 32 Evolved Sea Sparrow Missiles (ESSMs).
Eight 21-inch torpedoes in two 4-tube box launchers.
A modern hedgehog launcher.
The propulsion could be diesel engines in soft mounts. Electric motors might be turning the propeller. This ship is not intended to escort carrier strike groups or surface action groups, so a top speed of 25 knots might be plenty.
I equipped this ship with all the smaller guns for several reasons: (1) Some years ago I read Lessons Not Learned: The US Navy's Status Quo Culture by Roger Thompson. The author lamented that Ticongeroga-class cruisers lacked searchlights and 30 mm guns in stabilized mounts to counter speedboats. (2) On Twitter, Commander Salamander posted footage of a Ukrainian sea drone attacking a Russian patrol ship/corvette. He said medium- and small-caliber guns are important, and you can save $100,000 per year in peacetime by omitting a weapon and lose the ship in wartime. This ship's primary mission is not fighting small surface threats, and the corvette described below would be better for that purpose. But I see chain guns and .50-caliber Gatling guns as another type of point defense system. The VLS with ESSMs is to defend the ship against submarine-launched anti-ship missiles.
If this sounds familiar, a lot of my ideas come from here:
The Fleet Structure page:
https://navy-matters.blogspot.com/p/fleet-structure.html
The post and discussion on the Kamorta-class corvette are most interesting:
https://navy-matters.blogspot.com/2017/11/asw-corvette.html
The other corvette is this one. Carlton's diesel-electric corvette is designed for littoral submarine hunting, supporting amphibious and special operations, countering small surface threats, and so on.
https://www.g2mil.com/LCS.htm
What letters would the hull number on a corvette begin with? K? DDC?
To respond to your original question, I believe that the most bang for the buck would come in the areas where the current fleet is weakest, so my adds, in order of priority would be:
ReplyDelete1) ASW frigate
2) Mine countermeasures (I've proposed two ship types, a drone/helo support ship and a hunter)
3) NGFS, cruisrrs with 8" guns and destryers with 5" guns, minimum, hopefully BBs with 16" guns.
"What’s Missing?"
ReplyDeleteBrains, hearts and spines, mostly.
Best answer so far!
DeleteI would propose a variant of the USCG's NSC, call it FFG-7 2.0. Install the MK57 VLS that is on the Zumwalt's. Take advantage of having the VLS cells around the periphery of the ship. Have to have two triple MK32 SVTT with a larger torpedo magazine that has a mix of MK48 ADCAP, MK54 LWT/VLWT to allow for varying targets. 2 x RAM, 2 x CIWS (maybe a HELIOS) and at least one 5in/62cal gun or develop a modern rapid fire 6-inch gun. Just my contribution.
ReplyDeleteUsing the NSC as a starting point is interesting. I'm extremely doubtful that the Mk57 could fit, at all. The ship just isn't big enough (the entire flight deck and bow back to the superstructure can't take them). Note that Mk48 torpedoes can't be launched from the SVTT.
DeleteIf the purpose of this ship is ASW, you need to add RBU, ASROC, Prairie/Masker, wake suppression, rafting, etc. Is the flight deck and hangar rated for SH-60 type helos?
A updated Gearing class DD like I served on 69-73
DeleteCOM, currently the NSC can support one MH-60T. Of course countermeasures. An RBU or some modern incarnation of Weapon Alpha/Hedgehog in addition to VL-ASROC. I should have clarified it to an ASW platform (primarily), something akin to a Knox-class ASW frigate with a 4-pack of ESSM for self-defense.
DeleteI would build the supertanker frigate. The USN will not take mine warfare seriously so make ships that will be the least damaged by mines.
ReplyDeleteThe PLA navy likes to use large coast guard vessels to push around other ships so make the supertanker frigate to push the PLA navy right back.
Fill the hull with foam and make it nearly unsinkable.
Fit it with so many redundant systems to make mission kill very difficult.
MLW
https://navy-matters.blogspot.com/2017/12/supertanker-frigate.html
Good idea. My pick would be a fleet if subsidized us-built merchant container/crane/roro hybrids (if I am forced to pick one design) so in wartime the us can actually have some logistics.
DeleteI agree that the Logistics will be very difficult with our current capabilities. If the Logistics vessel also had some offensive capability that would be great. Add a couple of 32-64 cell MK41 VLS and they could be used as pseudo arsenal ships (extended magazines for other ships). The NeoPanamax size vessels are larger than the Iowa class battle ships and can be ordered from Korean and Japanese shipyards for around $100 million. If you paid double per ship maybe a foreign shipbuilder would build them in the USA.
Delete"Add a couple of 32-64 cell MK41 VLS"
DeleteWhat are you going to subtract from the logistic vessels? Those ships are already max'ed out for room. If you add a couple of huge VLS (along with sensors, advanced radars, CEC capability, advanced computers, fire control, guidance radars, advanced secure comm gear, more crew, more berthing, more food and water storage, etc.) you have to subtract an equivalent amount of capability/space. So, what are you going to remove from a max'ed out logistics ship? If you aren't going to remove anything then you have to add a hundred feet or so in length to the ship along with precious additional internal volume. That drastically increases the cost. All on the off chance that you can use an extra missile in some incredibly unlikely scenario.
Are you sure this is really a good idea?
How about a new Omega class cruiser with
ReplyDelete4 520mm Plasma Pulse Cannons, 6 Laser batteries (2 fore, 4 aft),
Gigaton Mines, 12 400mm Pulse Cannons, and 2 full squadrons of Starfuries.
The USN currently has, per Wikiprdia (not the best source, but close enough for this discussion), 73 Burkes and still 12 Ticos, despite the drawdown. That's 85 AAW ships and zero ASW ships. So the USN takes a GP frigate in the FREMM and converts it to an AEGIS/AMDR platform without enough missile tubes to be a viable AAW ship.
ReplyDeleteSo, how about:
-Stopping the Tico destruction until you have a viable true cruiser replacement (not just a bunch of topweight crammed onto a destroyer hull. Same idea for the Los Angeles class, but that's different subject.
- Stop the Connies at present level, and build out the rest of the class as FREMMs with USN damage control standards, significant reduction in habitability space (no need for 4-person staterooms for all hands, mess decks can serve as crew lounges and movie theaters, bring back urinals instead of all flush toilets that don't work when too many people flush at once), and using space and weight savings to add weapons and sensors and reduce superstructure.
- Build a bunch of ASW frigates based on something like ComNavOps's ASW escort.
"best source"
DeleteThe official source for exact numbers and types is the Naval Vessel Register:
Naval Vessel Register