Road to 350: What Does the US Navy Do Anyway?

[BigRed389]

The problem with Polmar and others is that I would argue the whole CVL debate is not forward thinking but very old thinking, more than 50 years old now. This is only the latest in a long line of almost identical arguments going back to Zumwalt's 'Sea Control Ship' concept that had CVL's equipped a handful of VSTOL fighters and helos. They would make great escort ships but crappy force projection platforms, which is what most more modern commentators seem to envision their more 'modern' proposals being.

I think Navy leadership, rightfully so, has seen these CVL-ish proposals as a dark horse that would cut the budget and take an even more proportional hit in capability for a ship that would be doing nothing more than looking for a mission. They would be more difficult to utilize in a 'peer-level' fight due to their reduced capability and flexibility. For just 20% of the cost you could get just 5% of the capability! I have no idea of the actual return on investment but when you take away a CVN's greater flexibility and, I dare say, sustainability in a wartime scenario you are left with a platform that doesn't give you anywhere near the bang for the buck.

As for the UK, you have to go back over 40 years to when they last had 'big deck' CV's and even then theirs were only half the size of US ones at their biggest. If a country is able to afford it building a 'big deck' carrier seems to be the desire of every blue water Navy, from France to Russia and China.

Another quibble that I have is on a more minor detail that he dismisses with only two, maybe 3, sentences:

Furthermore, there have been studies of the feasibility of operating the Osprey in the antisubmarine and airborne early warning (AEW) roles. The British, Chinese, and Russian navies have flown helicopters in the AEW role with success.

First off I am not sure how he got his info on how successful the Russians and Chinese have been with their AEW helos but even in the best case their capability is far less than a conventional aircraft. Secondly folks just seem to airily dismiss the fact that we would have to design, develop, fund and field a new platform, good luck trying to hang it on an H-60, with a new radar to boot to equip the proposed CVL's with an AEW capability. I'm sure that'll go well.

I'm not against new arguments or bold ideas but I am against dumb ones, while certainly not even close to the dumbest idea I have seen I think the capability and flexibility of a CVN is hard to beat even with the large cost.

This is the same logic the SWO community uses for the CG/DDG with a giant radar and 100 missile cells to be the one and only class they can think about. It feels like that's what's being applied to make CVNs in their current form the one and only useful carrier class.

So I don't know where he got 5-6x LHD to CVN...but:
CVN 78: $13B
GWHB: ~$7.5B
LHA6: $~$3.5B
LHD: ~$2B
Rough adjustments for inflation only.
So using GWHB and LHD unit costs as examples of mature CVN design and build vs mature LHD design, looks like 3-4x is not out of the question.

So, I'd really wonder, if a CVL could be designed that was capable of performing the current CVN GFM presence missions, why not trade off a few CVNs for the equivalent in CVLs? Not every problem needs a CVN and its entire CVW.
Before you scoff, the Midway class had roughly the same displacement as a LHD, and a CVL would probably be slicked out for more speed, maybe even catapult ops, if you drop the well deck/amphib requirement.

Instead of fucking around with CSGs, forcing them to do double pumps and so forth, would it be beneficial to have CVLs do all the routine presence deployments, and have the CVNs on a different rotation that focuses on maintaining readiness for peer adversary warfare?

 

[Hair Warrior]

The real Jedi mind trick would be deterring adversaries using other ways/means, while our Nimitz and Ford class CVNs remain in homeport for maintenance and crew rest/training.

If we truly believe the only thing deterring Iran from fuckery in the Middle East is a CSG or two in their periphery, we’re doing it wrong, because we’re just going to burn ourselves out and expend lots of blood/treasure trying to maintain the status quo.

And by doing it wrong, I am saying that means we haven’t invented enough carrots & sticks yet that carry the same weight/messaging as a CSG in theater, so we need to get more inventive.

 

[Randy Daytona]

This is the same logic the SWO community uses for the CG/DDG with a giant radar and 100 missile cells to be the one and only class they can think about. It feels like that's what's being applied to make CVNs in their current form the one and only useful carrier class.

So I don't know where he got 5-6x LHD to CVN...but:
CVN 78: $13B
GWHB: ~$7.5B
LHA6: $~$3.5B
LHD: ~$2B
Rough adjustments for inflation only.
So using GWHB and LHD unit costs as examples of mature CVN design and build vs mature LHD design, looks like 3-4x is not out of the question.

So, I'd really wonder, if a CVL could be designed that was capable of performing the current CVN GFM presence missions, why not trade off a few CVNs for the equivalent in CVLs? Not every problem needs a CVN and its entire CVW.
Before you scoff, the Midway class had roughly the same displacement as a LHD, and a CVL would probably be slicked out for more speed, maybe even catapult ops, if you drop the well deck/amphib requirement.

Instead of fucking around with CSGs, forcing them to do double pumps and so forth, would it be beneficial to have CVLs do all the routine presence deployments, and have the CVNs on a different rotation that focuses on maintaining readiness for peer adversary warfare?

We had this same discussion 4 years ago.

USN - Showdown between Super Hornet and F-35

The "new" airwing - 2 squadrons of Super Hornets + 2 squadrons of F-35C's? A showdown/competition coming for sure. https://news.usni.org/2017/02/16/trump-calls-f-35-program-head-boeing-ceo-lead-super-hornet-jsf-review

www.airwarriors.com

Some of us had the same opinion, we must maximize the flexibility of 10 LHD’s/LHA’s that are the size of Midway class carriers and can each bring 20 F-35’s to the fleet. If there is a conflict with China, the blue water Navy is going to need help - and a bunch (or as Jim123 stated: a congregation) of gators could be a big help. With the Marine Corps looking at a larger number of smaller amphibs and retiring large amounts of armor, artillery and helicopters, it might be an opportune time to test the Lightning carrier concept, perhaps in a task force of 2-4 gators together.

 

[jmcquate]

With the Marine Corps looking at a larger number of smaller amphibs and retiring large amounts of armor, artillery and helicopters, it might be an opportune time to test the Lightning carrier concept, perhaps in a task force of 2-4 gators together.

Not being sarcastic, but are the MEUs giving up their vertical envelopment and tacair support? Also, does the limited ops tempo of launches and recoveries of LHDs/LHAs make sense to play little CVs?

 

[Randy Daytona]

Not being sarcastic, but are the MEUs giving up their vertical envelopment and tacair support? Also, does the limited ops tempo of launches and recoveries of LHDs/LHAs make sense to play little CVs?

I would imagine in an extremis situation with China, the MEU’s would be disembarked ashore so the big decks could be filled with F-35’s - Cobras and LAV’s are of limited utility in that kind of fight.

As for ops tempo, perhaps using the gators in a large task force of 3-4 big decks, they could cumulatively generate a sufficient sortie rate.

 

[jmcquate]

As for ops tempo, perhaps using the gators in a large task force of 3-4 big decks, they could cumulatively generate a sufficient sortie rate

It's still a straight deck. You can either launch or recover (and launch one asset at a time). The mission can't change that.

 

[Brett327]

CVL could be designed that was capable of performing the current CVN GFM presence missions

Not without the capabilities of that CVN's CVW. Merely having a handful of F-35 w/o the complimentary capabilities of the CVW does not equal CVN GFM presence missions.

We had this same discussion 4 years ago.

...and it's just as dumb now as it was then.

 

[Flash]

This is the same logic the SWO community uses for the CG/DDG with a giant radar and 100 missile cells to be the one and only class they can think about. It feels like that's what's being applied to make CVNs in their current form the one and only useful carrier class.

So I don't know where he got 5-6x LHD to CVN...but:
CVN 78: $13B
GWHB: ~$7.5B
LHA6: $~$3.5B
LHD: ~$2B
Rough adjustments for inflation only.
So using GWHB and LHD unit costs as examples of mature CVN design and build vs mature LHD design, looks like 3-4x is not out of the question.

So, I'd really wonder, if a CVL could be designed that was capable of performing the current CVN GFM presence missions, why not trade off a few CVNs for the equivalent in CVLs? Not every problem needs a CVN and its entire CVW.
Before you scoff, the Midway class had roughly the same displacement as a LHD, and a CVL would probably be slicked out for more speed, maybe even catapult ops, if you drop the well deck/amphib requirement.

Instead of fucking around with CSGs, forcing them to do double pumps and so forth, would it be beneficial to have CVLs do all the routine presence deployments, and have the CVNs on a different rotation that focuses on maintaining readiness for peer adversary warfare?

Because it is the only one that makes sense for the missions we want carriers to do. The budget isn't some zero sum game and folks that think cutting one CVN is going to equal getting 3-6 LHA/LHD/CVL's are delusional, in the end they will likely cost far more than folks envision and we could very well end up with the same number of carriers, just a lot less capable.

A lot of the analysis, even supposedly 'smarter' ones, completely ignore the fact that one CVN air wing will not fill the deck of more than 3 CVL's, at most, and the number of escorts will be even more lacking. Unless you want to equip every CVL with only a squadron at most you are going to have to plus up the number of aircraft and squadrons. If you want each CVL to have 2 or 3 escorts you will definitely have to buy more of those. And since they won't be nuke powered they will likely need a bigger logistics tail to include more replenishment ships resupplying them more often. Then you get down to the details like possibly having to redesign the ships for a higher end fight to include more capacity for weapons and some AEW. Did I mention developing a new AEW platform and radar yet?

The devil is in the details and I haven't seen anyone yet dig deep enough to answer some of those tough questions. All that extra stuff starts adding up, but no one seems to mention hardly any of it, if at all, when they tout CVL's. It's like they don't even think it all the way through, which seems to be par for the course with 'bright ideas' like this.

And for all that 'savings' you get a smaller platform with a lot less capacity and capability, lacking in airborne in organic EA and AEW support and needing some of those gold-plated escorts to defend it not only against peer or near-peer adversaries but also against anyone who can afford to buy or develop the latest and greatest in anti-ship missiles, which are far more proliferated than most here probably realize, or other modern threats.

Again, if you look around to navies that want a carrier capability if they can afford it they go for the big enchilada, a 'supercarrier' with all its attendant benefits. There is good reason for that.

So yeah, a lot different than SWO procurement stupidity and the lack of FFG's which fortunately we are fixing.

 

[BigRed389]

So yeah, a lot different than SWO procurement stupidity and the lack of FFG's which fortunately we are fixing.

Oh, really?

...it is the only one that makes sense for the missions we want carriers surface ships to do. The budget isn't some zero sum game and folks that think cutting one CVN DDG is going to equal getting 3-6 LHA/LHD/CVL's FFGs are delusional, in the end they will likely cost far more than folks envision and we could very well end up with the same number of carriers ships, just a lot less capable.

A lot of the analysis, even supposedly 'smarter' ones, completely ignore the fact that one CVN air wing DDG missile magazine will not fill the deck launchers of more than 3 CVL's FFGs, at most, and the number of escorts embarked helo dets will be even more lacking. Unless you want to equip every CVL with only a squadron at most you are going to have to plus up the number of aircraft and squadrons. If you want each CVL DDG to have 2 or 3 escorts HSM birds you will definitely have to buy more of those. And since they won't be nuke powered have large enough onboard fuel tank, berthing, logistics capacity they will likely need a bigger logistics tail to include more replenishment ships resupplying and reloading them more often. Then you get down to the details like possibly having to redesign the ships for a higher end fight to include more capacity for better weapons and some AEW new radars and datalinks. Did I mention developing a new AEW platform and radar integrated fire control network yet?

The devil is in the details and I haven't seen anyone yet dig deep enough to answer some of those tough questions. All that extra stuff starts adding up, but no one seems to mention hardly any of it, if at all, when they tout CVL's FFGs. It's like they don't even think it all the way through, which seems to be par for the course with 'bright ideas' like this.

And for all that 'savings' you get a smaller platform with a lot less capacity and capability, lacking in airborne in organic EA and AEW support AAW and SUW capability and needing some of those gold-plated escorts to defend it not only against peer or near-peer adversaries but also against anyone who can afford to buy or develop the latest and greatest in anti-ship missiles, which are far more proliferated than most here probably realize, or other modern threats.

Again, if you look around to navies that want a carrier capability powerful navy that is intended to surpass the US Navy if they can afford it they go for the big enchilada, a 'supercarrier' big ass cruiser or destroyer like a Type 52D or Type 55 with all its attendant benefits big ass fucking missiles that can literally go further than the combat radius of a Super Hornet, lasers and sharks with lasers and shit. There is good reason for that.

Yes, I'm being snarky, though you could probably find something like that from any old SWO who hates change.
But neither of us is really qualified to guess what a hypothetical CVL could or couldn't do in terms of meeting various missions at lower cost/crew demands.
And if it can, then we probably should.

What's a lot more likely to be interesting is defining what cost/capability threshold the CVL needs to have to be useful to a CVN/CVL force mix to free up the CVNs to focus on the high end fight.

 

[Flash]

But neither of us is really qualified to guess what a hypothetical CVL could or couldn't do in terms of meeting various missions at lower cost/crew demands.

We are far more qualified than the vast majority of the published commentators who are pushing the idea, though given my personal experience with scores of SWO's I've served closely with few have the acumen to debate this particular issue very well at all. Snarky? Yes, but unfortunately true.

What's a lot more likely to be interesting is defining what cost/capability threshold the CVL needs to have to be useful to a CVN/CVL force mix to free up the CVNs to focus on the high end fight.

And that gets to the heart of the matter, this strikes me as a solution in search of a strategic problem. The only solution it offers is a monetary one, while certainly not unprecedented it certainly is not the best starting point for a military program.

 

[Brett327]

Stop calling it a CVL. There's no such thing. Marine F-35 deploys on an LHD.

 

[robav8r]

Well, it's a new congress, and both houses...as well as the Executive branch... have made a shit-ton of campaign promises, all of which cost a metric buttload of money. Something has to be the offset. You appear to think that the CV/CVW numbers are some sort of sacred cow. I fear they (and much else) are instead "meat on the table". We'll see, I guess.

. . . kind of like the exploding interest on the debt payments.

 

[Brett327]

. . . kind of like the exploding interest on the debt payments.

Recommend folks read a book that's been talked about a lot recently... The Deficit Myth. It's actually a very interesting set of economic theories about how to think about government spending, taxation, employment and inflation. It could change the way you think about what's worth spending federal dollars on.

 

[Jim123]

Stop calling it a CVL. There's no such thing. Marine F-35 deploys on an LHD.

Only if we agree to redesignate AMERICA and TRIPOLI as LPH-13 and LPH-14, since neither is a true LHA without a well deck.

#LPH4ever

But in all seriousness, using writer's license to call them CVLs and use historical context to argue a point in a persuasive essay, I think that's okay- but we should also be sure to differentiate between hypothetical CVLs and active ships on the register that are designated as LHAs and LHDs under the US-NATO convention.


P.S. the Zumwalts are battlecruisers

 

[Treetop Flyer]

It seems like there are two separate issues here. Build actual CVL’s or use LHD/LHA’s with a CVN. As has been mentioned already, LHD/LHA’s even without a well deck aren’t CVL’s and have huge drawbacks like no airborne early warning, electronic attack, an air department capable of cyclic ops, and of course STOVL problems. However it seems like a decent idea to have an LHD/LHA full of F-35’s work with a CVN and everything it’s group brings to the table.