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

[Brett327]

And a paper published, where, is commented on by O-7+, and that is peer review? Who here, raise your hands, has seen the studies and replies by VADM Burke and CNAF Brett mentions above? … Just what I thought. No doubt, any official comment from big Navy is useful. BUT, that is, in fact, Big Navy. They have their own influences, limitations and failings.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. In one case, the two co-authors of the piece that drew a response from CNAF in Proceedings resulted in an invitation to spend a few days with CNAF to talk about the issues and ultimately influence CNAF decision making. These things are talked about at the various O5 and O6 CNAF engagements.

or is there value in a broader distribution and public review by hundreds of individuals within the profession, stake holders, that might find flaws in the research and/or have a different conclusion?

Granted, hundreds of people may read what is published, but unless they decide to write a rebuttal or engage directly with the author (which 99.9% of readers will never do), there's no genuine mechanism for peer review.

I'd like to see a movement to have more of the official white papers and studies, that are often not read by more than a couple dozen people, published in Proceedings.

That is problematic, as DoD white papers do not constitute policy, and are generally considered internal FOUO documents.

Therein is the value in the opinions of retired guys some here so casually brush away.

Since we're usually talking about capabilities and platforms in this context, I'm quick to dismiss opinions of those who lack an understanding of current capabilities, which is also why it is generally not useful to have these discussions in an unclassified setting. Retired folks simply don't know what they don't know, and the people who do know can't talk about it.

 

[Randy Daytona]

I'm not really knowledgable about what goes on into designing the guts of a cargo ship, but I would certainly buy that the below waterline survivability of a large cargo ship, built to reasonable standards would absorb mine damage better than a warship. For an impact like that, tonnage matters a lot, and the below waterline compartmentalization should be reasonable, due to the numerous tanks and voids I would expect to be there.

Heavyweight torpedoes, on the other hand, I'm not as convinced. Those are big and pack a big enough punch that I don't think commercial standard damage control will be up to the task.

Also not surprised they weren't too badly damaged by Exocets. Exocet is a small missile with a pretty small warhead.

Found some accounts and data concerning mines and missiles (nothing on torpedoes). Despite hitting a mine, it was still considered safer for the big tanker to take the lead and the warships to follow in its wake. Perhaps the double hulls, the multiple tanks with plumbing designed to move large amounts of liquids and by design a necessary and effective fire suppression system makes the tankers more difficult to sink than some here have surmised. Certainly the captains of the USS Kidd and the USS Fox which decided to follow in trail seemed to think so.

From the Washington Post concerning the Bridgeton Incident. https://www.washingtonpost.com/arch...abdf554/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.ff1becd596ef

It was soon clear to officers on the bridge of the supertanker, however, that the damage was minor. "The hit is port {left side} amidships, 100 to 200 feet aft of the bow," said one radio report. "There is no danger to the ship, {there is} plenty of reserve buoyancy here." After the initial damage inspection, the convoy closed ranks to single file, with the Bridgeton in the lead, and the flotilla picked up speed to 10 knots. Murphy, the destroyer captain, told reporters that the mine that hit the Bridgeton was extremely powerful. "If we had hit that, it would have done enormous damage to the Kidd," the captain said. The huge supertanker is more able to absorb such blows.

In a tactic that appeared to put the safety of the Kuwaiti supertanker second to the safety of U.S. warships, the convoy proceeded to Kuwait after the mine went off using the Bridgeton as a plow through the gulf waters in hopes that its massive hull would detonate any additional mines.
Aboard the USS Fox, Capt. William Mathis told reporters that the Kuwaiti supertanker "can take hits easier than we can."

A study from The Strauss Center at the University of Texas had some interesting data on the Tanker War of the late 1980's, comparing tankers to bulk carriers and freighters.
https://www.strausscenter.org/hormuz/tanker-war.html

Lessons Learned
The Tanker War provides a useful historical background on a hypothetical future conflict in the Strait of Hormuz. Below are some key takeaways from the eight-year conflict:

Oil tankers are not very vulnerable to damage. 61 percent of the ships attacked during the Tanker War were oil tankers. In total, only 55 of the 239 petroleum tankers (23 percent) were completely sunk or declared CTL, compared to 39 percent of bulk carriers and 34 percent of freighters.

As for adaptability, the Expeditionary Transfer Dock which are in service and are being built are based on the Alaska class VLCC tanker. The original purpose built design was $1.5 billion per copy, by adapting the existing tanker design, the price was reduced 66% down to $500 million.

ESB variant USS Lewis B. Puller

It was mentioned earlier that WW2 was won with the Essex class carrier, etc. However one could argue that adapting civilian designs was more cost effective for some missions that did not require an Essex. Only 24 Essex class were built, however 122 escort carriers were built - the Avenger class, the Sangamon class, and the Bogue class escort carriers were all built on merchant hulls. With shipbuilding cost very high and some of the designs over budget, behind schedule or quite disappointing as well as not being built in the numbers planned, perhaps it might be worth a study to see if adapting some civilian hulls for specialized missions might be worthwhile.

Finally, it does seem to be a time of innovation as the Surface Navy discusses distributed lethality
https://usnwc.edu/News-and-Events/News/Distributed-Lethality-concept-gains-focus-at-NWC

and the Marines testing HIMARS from the decks of LPD's.
http://cimsec.org/want-broadside-marines-need-naval-fire-support/31347

Will be interesting to see where it leads...

 

[Hair Warrior]

Super interesting. It almost makes you want to buy a handful of inexpensive, scrap-ready old tankers that still have propulsion in order to be “mine fodder” in event of maritime conflict. They could be unmanned or minimally manned.

 

[Uncle Fester]

It's an interesting notion. On the other hand: Atlantic Conveyor.

I'm not entirely sold that what happened during the Tanker Wars is a good argument in favor of the concept. Most of the 'attacks' were assholes with RPGs and relatively small mines, which, yes, aren't going to do much to a double-hulled POL tanker besides fuck up the paint. However, I would be extremely hesitant to take any ship not built for wartime damage control into a cruise missile threat area. As seen with Conveyor, you don't have to sink it to take it out of the fight.

Even a C802 fired by rebel yahoos managed to fuck up ex-Swift pretty good. Against varsity players with the latest shit? Eek.

 

[Pags]

It was mentioned earlier that WW2 was won with the Essex class carrier, etc. However one could argue that adapting civilian designs was more cost effective for some missions that did not require an Essex. Only 24 Essex class were built, however 122 escort carriers were built - the Avenger class, the Sangamon class, and the Bogue class escort carriers were all built on merchant hulls. With shipbuilding cost very high and some of the designs over budget, behind schedule or quite disappointing as well as not being built in the numbers planned, perhaps it might be worth a study to see if adapting some civilian hulls for specialized missions might be worthwhile.

The better question is what role would a modified tanker fill in a peer conflict? CVEs were used for convoy escort (ASW) in the Atlantic and CAS platforms in the Pacific. Would there be some utility in turning a merchie into a RW ASW carrier? Maybe? I'm not smart enough ASW wise to know how useful that would be and if it would add anything since these days most ASW surface assets have an embarked helo; something that wasn't possible in WWII.

As I mentioned elsewhere, there's only so many USN shipbuilding dollars; are they better spent on potentially neat ideas or on proven useful platforms like DDG-51?

I'll let our resident SWOs speak to whether they'd rather have an odd-duck converted merchie or one more DDG in their order of battle.

 

[Griz882]

The point @Randy Daytona is making here is not that we need to stop building grey hulls in order to create a STUFT navy. The idea is to enhance the fleet in the event of an emergency. I see nothing wrong with testing and having on hand the equipment necessary to expand the fleet and spread the enemy out. Some degree of armed merchants have been around as long as we have had a navy at war, the concept could be an important stopgap measure.

 

[Pags]

The point @Randy Daytona is making here is not that we need to stop building grey hulls in order to create a STUFT navy. The idea is to enhance the fleet in the event of an emergency. I see nothing wrong with testing and having on hand the equipment necessary to expand the fleet and spread the enemy out. Some degree of armed merchants have been around as long as we have had a navy at war, the concept could be an important stopgap measure.

So how do they "spread the enemy out" in a peer conflict? What is the point of these vessels other than to sit around pierside "just in case?" A warship isn't a gun that you can keep in a drawer and pull out when you need it. There's a lot more care and feeding (read as people and money) needed to keep them useful.

 

[Hair Warrior]

The better question is what role would a modified tanker fill in a peer conflict?

A dumb answer to your good question: Modified tankers can be used to meet present-day missions in uncontested maritime operating environments to reduce additional wear/tear on CRUDES and Amphibs, which will need to be in great shape/readiness at the outset of any peer conflict.

 

[Griz882]

So how do they "spread the enemy out" in a peer conflict? What is the point of these vessels other than to sit around pierside "just in case?" A warship isn't a gun that you can keep in a drawer and pull out when you need it. There's a lot more care and feeding (read as people and money) needed to keep them useful.

@Hair Warrior hit the mark pretty close. I am not talking about converting a tanker into a warship, I am talking about having the components in place to quickly make the conversion in time of war. Peacetime...ship oil. Wartime...I recognize the concept is more complex than I am making it sound, but imagine taking ten tankers (average 1200 feet of available deck space) and fitting them with a several HIMARS type launch systems - basically "the gun in the drawer" you drop into the holster (the ship) when you need it. Using the standard HIMARS launch box as a measure, you could drop in about 300 per tanker. That equals 900 rockets each with a range of 190 miles. Add to that the fact that there is likely better rocket/missile technology with greater range and payload and you have a pretty deadly system out there. Worried about enemy subs...OK, let them go hunting along the merchant shipping lines, it will take pressure off the primary fleet.

I am not in any way advocating that we cease building warships. I think we should build as many as we can afford to properly and effectively man. Nor do I consider the idea binary...we can do more than one thing at varying cost. Nevertheless, if you take the US fleet in the Pacific (say 95 warships, not auxiliary) and add in the entire 96 warship fleet of the Japanese, the 50 warships of the Australians, and South Korea's 120 warships and the Chinese still have a slight advantage in overall strength. The ability to quickly add some firepower to the mix at a small cost can't be a bad thing.

 

[BigRed389]

@Hair Warrior hit the mark pretty close. I am not talking about converting a tanker into a warship, I am talking about having the components in place to quickly make the conversion in time of war. Peacetime...ship oil. Wartime...I recognize the concept is more complex than I am making it sound, but imagine taking ten tankers (average 1200 feet of available deck space) and fitting them with a several HIMARS type launch systems - basically "the gun in the drawer" you drop into the holster (the ship) when you need it. Using the standard HIMARS launch box as a measure, you could drop in about 300 per tanker. That equals 900 rockets each with a range of 190 miles. Add to that the fact that there is likely better rocket/missile technology with greater range and payload and you have a pretty deadly system out there. Worried about enemy subs...OK, let them go hunting along the merchant shipping lines, it will take pressure off the primary fleet.

I am not in any way advocating that we cease building warships. I think we should build as many as we can afford to properly and effectively man. Nor do I consider the idea binary...we can do more than one thing at varying cost. Nevertheless, if you take the US fleet in the Pacific (say 95 warships, not auxiliary) and add in the entire 96 warship fleet of the Japanese, the 50 warships of the Australians, and South Korea's 120 warships and the Chinese still have a slight advantage in overall strength. The ability to quickly add some firepower to the mix at a small cost can't be a bad thing.

The idea as proposed basically sounds like LCS modularity (as originally proposed, not the watered down version it is now), except you drop the weapons systems into a STUFT fleet in wartime.

Still some concerns and questions.
1) Pretty sure there aren't enough Federal Service CIVMARs to do this. And even with the Federal CIVMARs, how many stay on for a big war where they could actually get shot at?
2) USNR would likely have to be seriously retooled to support this. Each ship converted is going to need a detachment able to fly on and support this. Current USNR is (I'd be fairly certain) not manned and trained to crank out a bunch of shipboard technicians, weapons system operators, etc.
3) This is going to be a mountain of missiles we need to go buy...and that's assuming we stick to buying the ones we already use.

 

[Griz882]

The idea as proposed basically sounds like LCS modularity (as originally proposed, not the watered down version it is now), except you drop the weapons systems into a STUFT fleet in wartime.

Still some concerns and questions.
1) Pretty sure there aren't enough Federal Service CIVMARs to do this. And even with the Federal CIVMARs, how many stay on for a big war where they could actually get shot at?
2) USNR would likely have to be seriously retooled to support this. Each ship converted is going to need a detachment able to fly on and support this. Current USNR is (I'd be fairly certain) not manned and trained to crank out a bunch of shipboard technicians, weapons system operators, etc.
3) This is going to be a mountain of missiles we need to go buy...and that's assuming we stick to buying the ones we already use.

All excellent points and clearly points that need to be considered (among about a million others I'm sure). I guess the end point is a measure between the time and cost it takes to prepare vs the time and cost it takes to build. If, during week one of the Great Peer-to-Peer War, the enemy manages to sink two or three DDGs...will we have the time and/or capacity to build two or three more or might it be faster to convert?

Just spitballing here. I like interesting ideas and enjoy the discussion on the merits and failings of things like this.

 

[Brett327]

Modified tankers can be used to meet present-day missions in uncontested maritime operating environments to reduce additional wear/tear on CRUDES and Amphibs, which will need to be in great shape/readiness at the outset of any peer conflict.

Performing what mission, exactly? I'm sorry, but this entire concept is collosally stupid. The concepts being advanced in this thread are completely divorced from reality. For the love of Christ, make it stop.

 

[Griz882]

Although the idea of hiding say...150 rocket armed merchants flying under a false flag operation hidden in this...

https://www.shipmap.org/

 

[Hair Warrior]

Performing what mission, exactly? I'm sorry, but this entire concept is collosally stupid. The concepts being advanced in this thread are completely divorced from reality. For the love of Christ, make it stop.

HADR. NEO. Pre-positioning of equipment. RDT&E for future systems or concepts, such as we do on some USNS ships.

 

[BigRed389]

HADR. NEO. Pre-positioning of equipment. RDT&E for future systems or concepts, such as we do on some USNS ships.

CRUDES doesn’t do any of that.

Amphibs do, but they’re not really out there just to do HADR or NEO, that’s a byproduct of circumstance when it occurs.

Pre-po is a valid mission, but that’s not what amphibs do either.

RDTE is somewhat viable and interesting, but the test community really only needs a few ships at most, which would already be significantly more than we currently use, not a whole fleet of them.