Assault Carrier

Over the course of the blog, many commenters have suggested using the big deck LHA/LHD (LHx) as baby carriers.  We’ve discredited this notion in terms of traditional carrier operations (see, “LightningCarrier”) due to the limited size of the air wing and the complete lack of ability to operate E-2 Hawkeye AEW, tankers, and E/A-18G Growler EW aircraft that are crucial to combat effective air operations.
 
Other commenters have suggested using supercarriers for ground support to make up for the complete absence of naval gunfire.  This is a non-starter as the role of the carrier in an amphibious assault is interdiction of enemy strikes and reinforcements and the proper place to do that is hundreds or thousands of miles from the assault site.  It is suicidal folly to ‘tie’ a carrier to one location which is what would be required for a carrier to provide direct ground support for an amphibious assault.  And, lest we forget, we also lack a true ground attack naval aircraft.
 
However, the possibility exists that a dedicated, small, assault carrier could be useful in supporting amphibious assault operations.  Well, wait … don’t we already have ground support carriers in the form of our big deck amphibious ships (LHA/LHD)?
 
Yes, we do, but not effectively.  Consider, currently, the aviation component of an assault is housed on the LHx ships of which we only have a few (9 total LHA/LHD) and they have very limited air wings.  A typical LHx air wing consists of:

 

That’s a limited capability mix that lacks the number of aircraft to be effective in any of its roles.  Six strike aircraft can’t provide effective ground support, a dozen tiltrotors can’t transport a useful number of troops and gear, and four heavy lift helos can’t provide rapid, efficient heavy equipment transport.  Like most mixes, the air wing is a compromise that can do a little bit of everything but nothing well and ‘nothing well’ is not how you succeed in combat.  We’ve thoroughly analyzed the shortcomings of the LHx as regards aviation (see, “Aviation Amphibious Assault Ships”)  and provided the rationale for splitting off aviation from assault (see, “Separate Aviation FromAmphibious”) so I won’t belabor it any further, here.
  
The LHx came about because the Marines, institutionally terrified of being abandoned by the Navy (the Guadalcanal legacy) tried to combine the functions of both a carrier and an assault transport and, not surprisingly, managed to construct an unaffordable monstrosity that places too many eggs in one basket while performing neither function well.  So, why don’t we try separating the two functions into dedicated ships, each optimized for their role?  We previously discussed dedicated attack transports (see, “Attack Transport - APA”).
 
Having established the problems with an LHx and the rationale for separating the aviation and assault functions, let’s now consider what a dedicated amphibious assault aviation support ship (an assault carrier) would conceptually look like.
 
Focus – Separating the aviation component from assault allows us to eliminate the transport function leaving the carrier able to focus on ground attack/support.  This is crucial for a ship that will, hopefully, be substantially smaller than a full size carrier.
 
There is no need for transport helos.  They’re inefficient at their function and they’re non-survivable over a battlefield as amply demonstrated in Vietnam, Soviet Afghanistan, US Afghanistan, and elsewhere.  If we really think we need helos for some limited aspect of logistics support, we can easily provide a dedicated transport/cargo helo carrier by converting a merchant ship.
 
Aircraft – This is key to determining what an assault carrier would look like.  The choice of aircraft will determine the size and characteristics of the carrier.
 
Stealth aircraft are not needed and, indeed, stealth is largely useless when providing close range ground support (CAS).  The enemy can see you and the main threat is guns (ZSU-ish weapons) and small heat seeking, Stinger-type, shoulder launched anti-air missiles.  Radar stealth offers no benefit against either of those threats.
 
What is needed is an aircraft with the best possible combination of the following characteristics:
 

• Inexpensive so that appropriate numbers and replacements can be procured
• Armored for maximum airframe and pilot survivability
• Redundant and manual control systems enabling the aircraft to absorb tremendous amounts of damage
• Minimal IR signature to mitigate the main threat of Stinger-type missiles
• Minimal complexity which allows for easy repair/maintainability for excellent availability rates and combat damage repair
• Low maintenance per flight hour
• High sortie rates
• Excellent low speed maneuverability
• Minimal carrier operating requirements such as no, or simple, catapults and arresting gear
• Maximum number of weapons (hard points) as opposed to payload weight maximums.  In CAS, it’s far more useful to have a large number of weapons rather than a high payload weight.  To illustrate, it would be far more useful to have an aircraft with, say, ten weapon stations (hard points), each rated for a 500 lb bomb (5000 lb total payload) than an aircraft with four weapons, each rated for a 2000 lb (8000 lb total payload).

 
Having identified the desirable aircraft characteristics, let’s consider some candidate aircraft.
 
F-35B - The F-35B is often touted as a CAS aircraft but, in reality, is ill-suited for the ground attack/support role.  It is a large, fuel hogging, maintenance intensive, complex, non-damage resilient, limited hard point aircraft with staggeringly atrocious availability rates.  In addition, it is hideously expensive to procure and operate.
 
A-10 - The A-10 has many of the characteristics we’d like such as armor, redundant/manual flight controls, low maintenance, high sortie rates, and 11 weapon stations.  Of course, a naval version of the A-10 does not exist and would have to be developed.
 
F-16 – The F-16 is fairly maneuverable at moderately lower speeds but has only 6 (possibly 7?) weapon hard points and, like the A-10, does not exist as a carrier variant.  It also lacks any useful ground sensors, is unarmored, and lacks rugged, redundant controls.
 
A-1 Skyraider - A candidate you might not think of is the prop driven A-1 Skyraider.  It is incredibly simple (compared to a jet), free by current standards, easily maintainable and repairable (a wrench and duct tape), armored, highly maneuverable at low speeds, has very high availability rates, has 15 weapon stations, and can use simple catapults and arresting gear.  Further, it is a carrier aircraft and would need no development, whatsoever!
 
It is clear that high performance jets are not desirable for the aviation support role.  The best match to the desired aircraft characteristics is the A-1 Skyraider!  This, then, is the conceptual basis for an assault aircraft.  Having determined that, we can now focus on the design of the ship, itself.
 
Air Wing – Having chosen a conceptual aircraft, we now need to decide how many aircraft are needed in the air wing.  The answer, of course, is ‘as many as possible’.  Well, that’s not very helpful.  A better answer is that the number of aircraft is derived from a combination of factors such as the resultant carrier size/cost, combat effectiveness, dispersal of risk, etc.  A reasonable answer would seem to be somewhere in the neighborhood of 40 aircraft.  More than that and the carrier gets too large and costly.  Less than that and combat effectiveness drops precipitously.
 
Carrier – The first determination is whether we need a straight deck or angled deck.  Ideally, we’d like a straight deck, operated like WWII carrier, with no catapults and simple arresting gear.  If we could launch B-25’s off a Yorktown class carrier, I’d like to believe that we could design a Skyraider type aircraft that could launch unassisted.  Elimination of catapults would greatly reduce mechanical and utility (steam or electric) requirements which reduces the size and cost of the ship.  Assuming we can do this, we’ll be able to use a straight deck design which, again, reduces the size and cost of the ship.
 
As a point of reference, the US Navy WWII escort carriers were around 500 ft long and 10,000 – 20,000 tons with air wings of 30+ aircraft.  That seems like a good conceptual starting point for a design.
 
If we can keep the cost low enough, we can afford to build the carriers in sufficient numbers and be able to replace the inevitable losses of a vessel that is purposely placed in harm’s way.
 
The final consideration in this discussion is the fact that I don’t think there’s a strategic or operational need for amphibious assaults so the entire discussion is moot.  However, if we did want to maintain an amphibious capability, an assault carrier would be a step in the right direction though ultimately pointless without lots of large caliber naval guns.

Why Are We Building Another LHA?

The Marines have publicly stated that they are out of the amphibious assault business (so why are they buying ACVs?  But, I digress …).  The Commandant has designed his own, personal, slow, defenseless, light amphibious warship (LAW) that will somehow transport troops and supplies deep into enemy waters while remaining undetected.  The new Marine war plan is to use small units to launch missiles at ships and, in some unspecified way, to conduct anti-submarine operations and sink subs.

 

With that in mind, it would seem that neither the Marines nor the Navy has any use for the multi-billion dollar big deck amphibious assault ships like the America class LHA and the San Antonio LPD and yet the Navy is continuing to build them.  For example,

 

LHA-8 was laid down Mar-2019 and is currently under construction at Huntington Ingalls Industries (HII) in Pascagoula, Mississippi with delivery expected in 2024.

 

And,

 

The FY 2022 budget requests $68.6 million to support a future America class landing helicopter assault amphibious (LHA) ship. (1)

 

The 2022 National Defense Authorization Act, the military’s main budget, is currently being marked up and Congress appears to be adding funding for the America class LHA, LHA-9, to the shipbuilding budget.  HII received a $107M contract for LHA-9 long lead items in Apr-2021.(2)

America Class - Don't Need 'Em But Still Building 'Em

 The Marines don’t want them.  The Navy can’t use them.  They’re hideously expensive to build and operate. 

 

So  …  why are we building more LHAs?

 

This is the kind of head-scratching nonsense that makes me wonder if a lobotomy is a requirement for flag rank.  It certainly appears so.

 

 

 

_________________________________

 

(1)Highlights of the Department of the Navy FY 2022 Budget, p.2-5

file:///F:/Report%20-%202022%20Budget%20Highlights.pdf

 

(2)https://defbrief.com/2021/04/20/hii-gets-107m-for-us-navys-fourth-america-class-amphibious-assault-ship/

F-35 On Carriers? Sorry, Can't Use 'Em

When the USS Ford was being built, we all assumed, quite logically, that the ship would be able to operate the F-35 which had been around for twenty years or so, in various stages of development.  The timing was looking about right – the carrier and the F-35C would both be ready about the same time.  Well, in yet another disappointment for the Ford, it turns out that the carrier wasn’t actually built to operate F-35s.  No, this is not an April Fools post or some ComNavOps comedy piece.  This is real.  The Navy’s newest carrier can’t operate the F-35.

 

As it turns out, most of the Navy’s carriers and amphibious ships (LHA/LHD) can’t operate the F-35. 

 

Yes, the F-35C can take off and land on the carriers but the ships lack the communications, data integration, and maintenance facilities to fully utilize the supposed capabilities of the F-35 – those much hyped surveillance capabilities.  Without the proper comms and data handling facilities on the carriers, the F-35 can collect data but can’t effectively relay it to the carrier and allow the carrier to make use of it. 

 

On a related and stunning note, the US Navy has almost no ability to transfer F-35 engines to carriers.  The Ford is the only carrier that has the equipment to receive an engine.  The MV-22 has demonstrated the ability to transport a single engine to a carrier but this can only be done over very short distances.

 

As far as the amphibious ships, none can land the F-35B due to its excessive exhaust heat which damages the flight deck unless it has been specially modified.  You’ll recall that even the new USS America was unable to operate the F-35B, as the ship was built.  It had to be modified with special deck heat treatments, thermal and structural modifications to compartments immediately beneath the flight deck, and relocation of equipment in the path of the F-35B’s downward landing exhaust in addition to numerous communications and data handling facility installations and modifications.  Yes, America, the ship that was purpose built for the F-35B was unable to operate the F-35B without extensive and expensive modifications.

 

In fact, of 11 carriers and 33 amphibious ships, currently only 4 amphibious ships can fully operate the F-35.(1)  The lucky four are listed below.

 

• USS Essex
• USS Makin Island
• USS America
• USS Wasp

 

Even with the modifications, the F-35B can only land on a couple of limited spots.  For the America, the F-35B can only land on spots 7 and 9.(2)

 

It is worth noting that none of the supercarriers can operate the F-35.

 

The USS Bonhomme Richard, LHD-6, which recently suffered a massive fire that burned out of control for several days, would have been the fifth ship altered to operate the F-35.  The Bonhomme Richard is now, officially, being scrapped.

 

So, for those of you who envision air armadas of Navy F-35s sweeping the skies clear of enemy aircraft, that vision is still a long way in the future because we only have four amphibious ships that can even operate the F-35!

 

It is worth noting that the modifications required to operate the F-35 require many months and hundreds of millions of dollars to install (I assume the F-35 proponents are dutifully adding that to the cost of the F-35?).  It is not a capability that can be quickly installed when needed.  It will take decades to bring the current ships up to the standard required to handle the F-35.  If a war were to start today, we’d be limited to four amphibious ships operating our F-35s.

 

What is all this telling us?  What lessons are being demonstrated (and ignored!)?

 

• In our pursuit of technology, we created an aircraft too complex to even communicate with our carriers.
• Concurrency kills.
• Even the modified ships have only a limited F-35 operating capability and, in the event of battle damage, we might lack the ability to operate the aircraft due to damage to the couple of specific landing spots.
• In pursuit of the big, expensive, flashy toys, we’re ignoring the mundane support and infrastructure needed to even fully operate the toys.

 

 

 

Just a reminder … When the F-35C reaches squadron service, the Navy is planning to reduce the squadron size from the current 12 aircraft to 10, further shrinking the already shrunken air wings.  The F-35 is the gift that keeps on giving!

 

 

 

_____________________________________

 

(1)Breaking Defense website, “USS Bonhomme Richard Heads For Scrapyard After Devastating Fire ”, Paul McLeary, 30-Nov-2020,

https://breakingdefense.com/2020/11/uss-bonhomme-richard-heads-for-scrapyard-after-devastating-fire/

 

(2)Jalopnik website, “Navy Builds Ship For F-35, Ship Needs Months Of Upgrades To Handle F-35”, Tyler Rogoway, 13-Apr-2015,

https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/navy-builds-ship-for-f-35-ship-needs-months-of-upgrade-1697523492

• 
  

Eliminate Aviation Amphibious Ships

The Navy’s dilemma in amphibious assaults is that they don’t want to risk the high cost, high value ships like LHA/LHDs close to shore.  Well of course they don’t !  Those ships cost several billion dollars each and we have way too few to risk.  Unfortunately, that means we can’t actually execute an amphibious landing because the ships have to stay too far from shore for the landing craft to get there with the troops in any kind of functional condition.

What’s the problem?  Why has this situation occurred?  Can we do anything about it?

Let’s start by asking, why do we even have a problem?  It’s because we did something very foolish some time ago: we combined an aircraft carrier and a troop transport to get the LHA/LHD.  The LHA/LHDs are gigantic ships that cost a fortune and cram both the aviation element and the ground element together in the same ship.  Talk about concentrating risk!  If we lose a LHA/LHD, we lose both elements and several billion dollars worth of investment.

Wasp Class LHD - Ground + Aviation

Yeah, that’s true, you say, but that’s the way it’s always been.  Wrong, bilge breath!  In WWII those functions were separate.  Let’s recall how it was done then.

The aviation element, in WWII, was contained on a small escort carrier.  This carrier was free to maneuver and remain well off from the landing site because a few dozen, or more, miles meant nothing to the airplanes.  Thus, the carrier could provide effective support for the ground troops without having to risk the ship, itself.

The troop transports (APA attack transports) were free to move in near shore to unload their troops into landing craft.  Being smaller, with the risk widely dispersed, the transports were expendable in the sense that the loss of one would not cripple the entire assault.

We need to return to this model.  We need to separate the aviation and troop transport functions.

We need to build small carriers that house the assault aircraft and that have no other function.  These small carriers can stand as far off from the landing site as needed.

We also need to reevaluate what constitutes assault aircraft.  If the assault aircraft are dedicated to ground support (as opposed to air-to-air fleet defense) then they don’t necessarily need to be high performance stealth fighter designs.  They could, potentially be more akin to an A-10 or Skyraider.

We need to build small (on a relative basis) WWII type troop transports, each with a couple dozen landing craft (which also need to be designed and built).  This reduces the cost, disperses the risk, and makes a landing actually feasible again.

Attack Transport

Eliminating big deck amphibious ships and breaking them up into small, separate, ground support carriers and troop transports reduces risk, reduces cost, and increases the feasibility of amphibious assaults.  Let’s do it, Navy! 

Aviation Amphibious Assault Ships

The centerpiece of the US amphibious assault force is the aviation capable, big deck LHA/LHD ship such as the America (LHA) and Wasp (LHD) classes.  Even the smaller amphibious ships such as the now standard San Antonio (LPD) class have a significant aviation capability.

The USS America (LHA-6), for example, is a monument to aerial flexibility and power.  The aviation component can vary according to mission needs but a typical mix of aircraft might be 12 MV-22 transports, 6 F-35B strike aircraft, 4 CH-53K heavy transport helicopters, 7 AH-1Z/UH-1Y attack helicopters, and 2 MH-60S helos for search and rescue, according to Wiki (2).  The ship can also be configured to operate as a mini-carrier by dropping the helos and MV-22s and embarking 20 F-35Bs instead.

Even the smaller San Antonio (LPD-17) can operate a mix of several helos and MV-22s.

Collectively, this impressive aviation capability leads me to refer to these imposing vessels as … useless.

Wait, what?

How can that much aviation capability be useless?

For starters, I’ve repeatedly stated that there is no strategic need for amphibious assaults in any war against Russia, NKorea, and China (with the possible but unlikely exception of retaking Taiwan).  There is a slight chance of an amphibious assault against Iran but that would be more along the lines of an unopposed unloading rather than an assault.  With that said, our amphibious fleet offers no useful capability because it simply will never be needed.

For the sake of continued discussion, let’s assume that there is some undefined, non-specific need for amphibious assault.  Let’s take a closer look at the large deck, amphibious fleet of 30+ ships.  What do these aviation amphibious assault ships offer?

The Marines seem to desperately want to become an aviation vertical assault force.  By definition, that means that they can only be a light infantry force since they can’t transport tanks, heavy vehicles, etc. by air.  Worse, such a force can only be a very, very short duration force since it is not possible to sustain an assault by MV-22/helo resupply especially when the likely attrition rates are factored in. 

So, what kind of action does this translate to?  At most, it would be a low intensity, short duration raid or rescue type scenario.  This low level of combat power is simply not useful in peer combat and certainly does not justify the construction and maintenance of a 30+ ship amphibious fleet.  Really, 30+ amphibious ships to service light infantry?  Does that make sense?

Let’s look now at close air support.  Supposedly, the Marines want their “own” carriers so that they can always be assured of air support.  Okay, how much firepower does that air support provide?  A standard Amphibious Ready Group (ARG) consists of three amphibious ships:  an LHA/LHD, an LPD, and an LSD.  The typical attack aircraft totals are 6 F-35Bs and 7 attack helos.  So, what kind of firepower does that represent?

An F-35B can carry a total of 6 air-to-ground weapons (2 internal + 4 external with 2 additional near-wingtip hardpoints for smaller, air to air weapons only).  Therefore, 6 F-35s can deliver a theoretical maximum of 36 weapons per attack “wave”.  Also, note that the F-35B model is limited to 2x 1000 lb bombs internally (the remaining internal mounting points are for smaller, air to air weapons).  So, assuming a maximum 2000 lb bomb on the external hardpoints (I don’t know if this is even a permissible arrangement) plus two 1000 lb bombs internally, the maximum munitions load for a single aircraft would be 10,000 lbs.  Thus, 6 F-35Bs can deliver a theoretical maximum of 60,000 lbs of munitions.

An AH-1Z can carry up to 16 Hellfire missiles or 76 unguided 2.75 inch rockets or 28 guided rockets.  This is a nice “sniper” capability to have in a low end scenario but is almost insignificant in terms of firepower in high end combat.

So, the aviation element can deliver 36 munitions (10,000 lbs) once every few to several hours.  Assuming no aircraft combat losses and minimal maintenance (an invalid assumption since all modern military jets require extensive maintenance for every flight hour), we could, theoretically, generate an aviation attack wave once every, say, six hours, at best.  Doing the math, that’s an average of 6 munitions per hour.  Does that sound like it would have the slightest effect on a Marine assault/battle? 

Of course, the numbers cited are for a Marine Expeditionary Unit and they values would scale up as we move to a MEB/MEF but the relative contributions would remain unchanged.

Now, just for fun, let’s look at a Burke class destroyer providing fire support with its single 5”/54 or 5”/62 gun.  The gun can fire 68 lb shells at a rate of 20 rounds per minute with a magazine of 680 shells (1).  Thus, a single Burke with a single 5” gun can provide 46,240 lbs of munitions and can deliver that amount in 34 minutes, firing at a rate of 20 rpm.  Further, the naval gunfire is always on call, cannot be jammed or decoyed, is impervious to weather conditions, and puts no pilot’s lives at risk.  Of course, this assumes that the Navy is courageous enough to risk a Burke within a few miles of shore and that the targets are within range of the ship’s guns!

At this point, the astute military analyst should be asking, why do we even bother with amphibious aviation ships given the very marginal firepower support they can provide?  Wouldn’t all that aviation money be better spent on naval gun support?

To be fair, we should note that amphibious aircraft can offer weapons delivery further inland than current naval gun support.  Of course, the further inland, the fewer the number of attack waves (sorties) we can generate so that’s a double-edged sword.  Again, the astute military analyst should be asking, wouldn’t all that aviation money be better spent on long range, amphibious, self-propelled artillery that the Marines can bring ashore with them?

Wasp Class LHD

We should also note that much of the amphibious aviation element is geared towards transport rather than weapons delivery.  However, given that current aircraft can’t lift/transport tanks, engineering vehicles, artillery, or any other heavy equipment, the Marines are, by definition, limited to being light infantry when using aviation as the ship-to-shore transport mode.  The astute military analyst should be asking, is it worth the incredible expenditure to build and maintain a 30+ large deck, amphibious fleet just to provide light infantry combat capability?  Couldn’t the Army/Air Force combination provide light infantry anywhere in the world for a lot less money?

So where does that leave us and what can/should we do?

There are several possibilities.

• In recognition of the Marine’s (now) light infantry capability combined with the unlikelihood of major amphibious assaults in the foreseeable future, eliminate the bulk of the amphibious fleet.  We can retain around 9 ships (3 ARGs) for training and core competency retention or for use in low end scenarios.  Turn the rapid response light infantry role over to the Army/Air Force.

• Greatly increase our naval gun support capability.  As we have no effective naval gun support, currently, this would entail designing and building a new class of naval gun support ship.

• Greatly increase the Marine’s organic self-propelled artillery capability.  The challenge with this approach is to get the equipment ashore quickly and early in an assault.

• Figure out a way to get the current heavy equipment, armor, and firepower from ship to shore in a faster, more survivable way that can put the equipment ashore from outset of an assault.  Since it’s highly unlikely that aircraft could be developed that could provide the necessary lift, this means designing landing craft that are small (sized for individual tanks as the maximum size requirement), fast, and reasonably survivable as part of the initial assault wave.

• Eliminate aviation-capable amphibious ships and transfer the aviation responsibility to the regular aircraft carriers.  This would greatly streamline aviation maintenance and efficiency.  It would also eliminate the need for the F-35B since the carriers can operate the “C” model.  This would also have the effect of increasing air wing size and employing the wing more effectively until that rare moment, if ever, when we need amphibious air support.  Hand in hand with this would be the relocation of the ground element to smaller, cheaper, pure transport vessels (Attack Transports – APAs, to use the WWII terminology).

Considering that we’re maintaining a fleet of 30+ multi-billion dollar aviation-based amphibious ships for a marginal aviation capability, one has to wonder if the expense is worth it.  Our big deck amphibious ships simply don’t offer high end combat capability sufficient to justify their existence.

_____________________________________

(1)NavWeaps website

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_5-62_mk45.php

(2)Wiki, “USS America (LHA-6)”, retrieved 7-Jun-2018,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_America_(LHA-6)

America Class and the F-35B

The F-35B is, or will be, inextricably linked to the America class LHA.  The F-35B was built to operate from the America and the America was built, specifically, to operate the F-35B since the ship has no well deck.  My suspicion is that the America was built to be a mini-aircraft carrier rather than an amphibious ship.  America can operate 20 F-35Bs when configured as a mini-carrier.

America was informally commissioned in Jul 2014 and proceeded to sail to San Diego where the ship was formally commissioned in Oct 2014.  In the ensuing 17 months, the ship has spent the majority of the time in dock and has just now returned to duty after spending the previous ten months undergoing upgrades to accommodate the F-35B.  Upgrades included strengthening the flight deck, adding soundproofing, rearranging and restructuring compartments immediately under the flight deck due to noise issues, hangar modifications, and treating the flight deck with a specially designed thermal coating to accommodate the massive heat load of the F-35B.  As a USNI News article puts it,

“The aviation-centric big deck was commissioned in late 2014 but required additional work to take the day-to-day strain of operating the short takeoff and vertical landing (STOVL) strike fighters that will operate from the ship.” (1)

Apparently, no one realized the impact the F-35B would have on the ship that was designed to operate it.  That’s some pretty major design flaws in a ship that was specifically designed to operate the F-35B! 

This also illustrates the on-going impact of the F-35B on the entire military.  The cost of the F-35B program extends well beyond the “mere” cost of the aircraft’s construction.  I have seen no figures beyond an initial $32M contract for normal post-shakedown work but what do you think a 10 month upgrade/rebuild effort on the America cost?  It’s got to be hundreds of millions of dollars.  Further, the next ship in the class, LHA-7, will also require extensive refits after completion which is more money to make the F-35 program work.  The Navy’s website makes it clear that the vast majority of the 10 month upgrade period is due strictly to the F-35.

“America is more than halfway through its post-shakedown availability period (PSA) in which the ship's crew and contractors make improvements to the ship's design. About 20 percent of the work being performed is the normal maintenance associated with PSAs for newly constructed ships. The rest of the maintenance consists of the upgrades designed to support the JSF.” (2)

Beyond the cost, the work required the ship to be idled for 10 months.  Thanks to the F-35B, the America has been in dock for 10 of its 17 months in commission.  The ship’s two year anniversary is coming up and it has yet to deploy.

(1)USNI News, “USS America Back to Sea After Completing 10-Months of Deck Strengthening for F-35s”, Sam LaGrone, March 22, 2016,

http://news.usni.org/2016/03/22/uss-america-back-to-sea-after-completing-10-months-of-deck-strengthening-for-f-35s

(2)navy.mil, “America Modifications Increase Air Capabilities”, USS America (LHA 6) Public Affairs, 8-Dec-2015,

​http://www.public.navy.mil/surfor/lha6/Pages/America-Modifications-Increase-Air-Capabilities.aspx#.VvKU_tIrJxA

Tarawa, LHA-1 - What Was Wrong With It?

The Tarawa, LHA-1, class amphibious ships are being replaced by the America, LHA-6, class.  The five member Tarawa class was built in the mid-1970’s and ‘80’s and are now retired after individual service lives of 33, 30, 27, 32, and 34 years.  That’s not very old by major ship standards.

What’s wrong with the Tarawa class that they have to be replaced after barely 30 years of service?  The America class design is largely a repeat of the Tarawa class with some minor changes to better accommodate the MV-22 Osprey and the anticipated JSF so the basic design must be suitable.  America will use hybrid electric propulsion and incorporate gas turbines which will offer fuel savings but that’s hardly a reason to scrap an entire class.  I’ve never read any document outlining the flaws in the Tarawa class that justify such an early retirement.  Similarly, I’ve not read any document that describes sufficient advances and benefits in the America as to justify early retirement of the Tarawa class.

Consider that the official Marine need for amphibious lift was 36-38 major amphibious ships, depending on what document or statement one wishes to reference.  Recognizing fiscal realities, the Marines grudgingly accepted a requirement for 33 ships.  The reality is that we only have around 30 ships and appear headed for around 25-28 ships given the current budget challenges.  Given a current and worsening shortfall in amphibious lift capacity, then, does it seem reasonable or wise to retire five fully capable amphibious ships in the prime of their lives? 



Tarawa - What Was the Problem?



Let’s speculate …  One possible reason for the actions is that the Marines have stated publicly that frontal amphibious assaults are a thing of the past (so why are they trying to get a new EFV/AAV/ACV?) and that inland airborne assaults are the wave of the future.  If that’s the case then the Tarawas with their well decks and LCACs might well be considered obsolete and an accelerated movement to the all-aviation America class might be justified.  The only problem with that theory is that the America class is only going to consist of two all-aviation ships, LHA-6 and -7.  Starting with LHA-8, the class is returning to the standard well deck arrangement, apparently for all future ships of the class.  So, it’s obvious that a movement towards all-aviation assaults is not the reason for dumping the Tarawas (along with the previously stated contradiction by the Marines in continuing to pursue amphibious EFV/AAV type vehicles).  In fact, the abrupt reversal back to a well deck in the America class could be interpreted as recognition that the all-aviation concept is already a failure before the first of class is even commissioned!  On the other hand, this may have been the Navy’s way of sneaking a couple of small JSF carriers into the force structure without having to go through the usual oversight and reviews – and if that’s the case, it might not be a bad thing but that’s a topic for another post.

Returning to the Tarawas, we have a perfectly capable ship that served as the design basis for its successor and had many more years of service life left at a time of declining amphibious lift capacity and yet the entire class was retired early.  People, I don’t get it.  This one is a head scratcher.  The Navy is consumed by the drive to fund new construction above all else and I just don’t understand it.  The Navy routinely makes poor decisions but this one is bad even by their standards.

JSF Air Wing Cost

I just posted some program costs but it's worth pointing out the JSF costs in a bit more detail.  The Joint Strike Fighter (JSF or F-35) procurement is currently set for 2,457 aircraft.  Using the cost of $161M per aircraft, that's a total program cost of $395 billion !  Yikes!


The new LHA-6 that was discussed in a previous post is designed for an air wing of 20 JSF as one possible configuration.  Let's do the math. 


20 JSF x $161M = $3.22 billion


Breaking the Bank?



That's $3.22B for one air wing on one LHA!

Remember that the JSF was the low cost alternative to the "expensive" F-22.  How'd that work out?  This program needs to be cancelled now, before we go and build two thousand of these and break the bank.

The worst part is that the JSF provides only modest overall improvements over the Super Hornet in terms of range and has a smaller weapons capacity (3000 lb vs 17,750 lb for the Hornet) without resorting to external hardpoints which reduce its range and negate its stealth.

LHA-6 - Aviation Assault Ship

While the LCS is soaking up most of the attention of naval observers, there is another ship currently being designed and built that also has the potential to be controversial.  The LHA-6 class is being built as a replacement for the LHA-1, Tarawa, class.  Three units were anticipated as of 2010 to replace the five unit Tarawa class.  This illustrates the ongoing, steady decline in fleet size.

LHA-6 - Note Absence of Well Deck

The LHA-6 is a unique design in that, unlike any other amphibious ship, it has no capability to conduct a waterborne assault since it lacks a well deck.  The ship is designed and intended purely for airborne assault and aviation operations.  Cargo and vehicle transport will be limited to sizes and weights that can be airlifted.  How this will impact the ship's overall contribution to  an Amphibious Ready Group (ARG) and Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU) remains to be seen.

Troop carrying capacity is designed for 1600 Marines.

The aviation capability is designed to support a notional mix of fixed-wing and rotary-wing aircraft consisting of 12 MV-22s, 6 F-35B JSF, 4 CH-53Es, 7 AH-1s/UH-1s, and 2 embarked H-60 Search and Rescue (SAR) aircraft.  Alternatively, it can embark an attack wing of 20 F-35Bs and 2 embarked H-60 SAR aircraft (3).  The hangar bay was greatly expanded compared to the Tarawa with the medical spaces being reduced by two thirds to make room.

Construction started at Huntington Ingalls on the lead ship in 2008 and delivery is scheduled for 2013.  The first ominous sign for observers is that when construction began the design was only 65% complete.  The Navy has been down the path of concurrent design and construction with both the LCS and LPD-17 class and both have proven to be unmitigated disasters.  To say that the Navy is slow to learn would be an epic understatement.  In fact, a GAO report cites high levels of construction rework and resulting delays due to design issues (1).

“According to program officials, LHA 6 has experienced a significant number of physical interference issues during construction that have required modifications, including ripping out of completed work, and caused work to stop at times.”(2)

GAO cites the LHA-6 cost at $3.3B as of 2010 (1).

Another potentially significant issue is the flight deck construction and its ability to withstand the intense heat of the F-35 (JSF) and MV-22 engine downwash.  There are repeated warnings in reports that the deck may have to be redesigned and reworked but that won’t be known for sure until construction is complete and operational tests can be conducted.

The Ship Self-Defense System (SSDS) is another anticipated problem area.  The combat system includes the SSDS Mk 2, CIWS, SPS-48E long-range air search radar, SPQ-9B horizon search radar, Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC), Rolling Airframe Missiles (RAMs), Evolved SeaSparrow Missiles (ESSMs), SLQ-32B(V)2 electronic warfare systems, and Nulka-equipped Mk 53 decoy system.  DOT&E states,

“… it is unlikely that LHA-6’s Ship Self-Defense System (SSDS) Mk 2-based combat system will meet the ship’s Probability of Raid Annihilation (PRA) requirement against anti-ship cruise missiles (ASCMs).”

To be fair, this is a known problem with the SSDS across multiple ship classes.

[Thanks to a sharp-eyed reader (sharper than me, for sure!) who caught a math error, the following section has been re-written a bit]

As with the LCS, the Navy did not produce a concept of operations prior to starting construction.  It remains to be seen how an amphibious ship without a well deck and only very limited cargo/vehicle transport capability will contribute to an amphibious assault.  Given that there is no well deck, it is instructive to examine the single “wave” troop transport capacity provided by the CH-53s and MV-22s.  Each CH-53 can carry 55 troops and each MV-22 can carry 24.  For the notional mix of 4 CH-53 and 12 MV-22, that translates to a single wave capacity of 508 troops out the 1600 embarked.  Thus, it would require 3+ waves to get all the troops ashore.  That seems like a fair transport capability but, lacking any heavy lift, has the potential to leave lightly armed troops in a somewhat vulverable position. Presumably, the heavy gear could be supplied from other ships although that violates the "eggs in one basket" philosophy if the heavy gear ship is sunk or otherwise unavailable when needed. 

The key to whether this ship is ultimately deemed successful will be the operating doctrine applied to it.  Will it be used as a light infantry transport, a light carrier, some combination, or something else, entirely?  The jury will be out on this one for a while, yet.

I wonder if the Navy views this ship as more of a light carrier (the alternate aviation mix of 20 F-35s) to supplement the carrier groups in scenarios involving somewhat limited conflict such as the recent Libyan operation.  Given that a current supercarrier air wing only contains about 42-44 combat aircraft, as discussed in a previous post, the LHA’s 20 F-35s would represent half of a supercarrier’s combat capability.  If this is what the Navy has in mind, the success of the concept will depend on the capability of the JSF which has more than its share of problems, at the moment.  That's a topic for another day, though.

(1)  GAO, Defense Acquisitions, Assessments of Selected Weapons Programs, March                   2012, GAO-12-400SP, p.105

(2)   GAO, p.106

(3)   DOT&E, 2011 Annual Report, p.143

Marine Amphibious Lift - Who Needs Gators?

Sometimes it's fun to take a break from LCS-bashing although the Navy makes it so darn easy.  Anyway, let's take a look at Marine Corp amphibious lift, today.  Now, I know that amphibious assault is an article of faith with many people but try to consider the following discussion with an open mind.

What is the purpose of amphibious lift?  Why, to put Marines ashore, of course.  We did it repeatedly in WWII and several times since.  And what is the amphibious lift capacity, currently?  Here are the recent lift requirements (1).

1980 = 1.15 MEF (66,252 Marines + equipment)
1991 = 2.5 MEB AE (33,793 Marines + equipment)
2006 = 2.0 MEB AE (23,016 Marines + equipment)

MEF = Marine Expeditionary Force
MEB AE = Marine Expeditionary Brigade, Assault Echelon, usually shortened to MEB
Note - Marine totals include some Navy support elements

So, we see a steady decline in the lift capacity requirement.  Most of the decline is associated with the simple reality imposed by budget limitations over the last several decades rather than absolute strategic and operational necessity.  Nonetheless, we see a steady decrease.  The current lift requirement is met by a goal of 33 amphibious ships (LHA, LPD, and so on).



Amphibious Lift - How Much is Too Much?

That much lift, 33 ships, is a significant chunk of the naval fleet both in terms of numbers and, more importantly, cost.  New build amphibious ships are running $1B-$3.5B and heading up all the time.

Let's go back to the seemingly simple question - What is the purpose of amphibious lift? - and look a bit closer.  There are two general applications for amphibious lift:  not surprisingly, during war and during peace.  Wartime lift would be associated with China, Iran, N. Korea, or various small Third World countries.  Peacetime lift would be associated with hostage rescue, embassy evacuation, localized stabilization operations, surgical strikes associated with terrorism or piracy, raids, Special Ops, and so on.  What are the likelihood of each of these?

1. I don't see any possibility of a land invasion of China under any circumstance. We'd have to be insane.  Thus, massive amphibious capability is not needed.

2. I don't see the likelihood of large scale amphibious invasions of Iran/N. Korea since each has neighboring "friendly" countries that we would use as overland invasion portals. I do see the possibility of small scale amphibious flanking attacks which would require company to regiment size amphibious capability.

3. I see very likely and fairly frequent need for "peacetime", short term, small scale amphibious ops in third world countries - putting out fires, so to speak. As stated these ops would be hostage rescue, raids, surgical strikes on specific and limited targets, and so on. These would require company size (200 Marines) or less amphibious capability.

With the above in mind, suggest that we don't need nearly as much large scale amphibious capability as we have. I do, however, see the need for more (we don't really have any, currently) small scale, company size amphibious ships.  Thus, our cursory thought exercise suggests that rather than needing a large lift capacity what we really need is 10-15 small, company sized ships for the far more common peacetime ops and a relatively small handful of larger ships for the Iran/N. Korea scenario.  So, instead of 33 large amphibious ships that we have now, 10-15 small ships plus 6 larger ships would suffice. 

Hmm... A redesigned LCS or JHSV would almost fit the bill for a Company size amphibious ship, wouldn't it?  But, I digress.



Company Size?

In fact, I see in the Feb '12 Naval Institute Proceedings (pg. 44) that the Marines are, indeed, experimenting with Company size landing forces, dubbed Company Landing Teams. Presumably, it's a recognition that, short of total war, the most common type of amphibious activity involves raids, hostage rescues, embassy protection/evacuation, etc. as we discussed.  To be fair, the author does not propose using the LCS as a mini-gator or constructing purpose-built mini-gators but, instead, suggests basing the Company and MV-22s on carriers. He notes that current carrier air wings are well under the carrier's designed capacity and, therefore, he suggests that the carriers have room. Undersized air wings? Stop me if this sounds familiar - it should since we discussed it here. 

This analysis has been a simple thought exercise in matching anticipated operations and requirements to our force structure.  What I see as our likely needs doesn't match our current structure.

As I stated at the outset, amphibious lift is an article of faith for many and I'm perfectly willing to be persuaded that we need more than I've just called for.  Feel free to explain why you think we need more but do it with facts, not just a vague statement that we might someday need more.  Using that reasoning, we should build 400 carriers, 1000 amphibious ships, and so on, because you just never know what might happen. 


(1)  Congressional Research Services, Navy LPD-17 Amphibious Ship Procurement: Background, Issues, and Options for Congress, Ronald O'Rourke, 16-Mar-11