New Maritime Strategy

[Flash]

You're punching above your weight class buddy. Is there a 'possibility?' Sure, albeit a small one. The post I quoted is still patently wrong, as is yours.

I am a bit heavier than I used to be but lets mot make it personal, and it is beside the point anyways....

Whether you believe it or not I am not talking out of my ass on this subject. Even the latest DDG's are not immune to modern threat systems, anyone who thinks otherwise is a fool. So as unknowledgable as the original poster was he is likely correct, after all an enemy missile is not often going to care what blip on it's screen it hits. Unless it has become self aware, then we are all screwed.

 

[azguy]

Whether you believe it or not I am not talking out of my ass on this subject. Even the latest DDG's are not immune to modern threat systems, anyone who thinks otherwise is a fool. So as unknowledgable as the original poster was he is likely correct, after all an enemy missile is not often going to care what blip on it's screen it hits. Unless it has become self aware, then we are all screwed.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you have some experience in this field. I just ask that you give me the benefit of the doubt that I've forgotten more that you will ever know about shipboard air defense. I would love to continue this conversation in a classified setting.

 

[Duc'-guy25]

You're punching above your weight class buddy. Is there a 'possibility?' Sure, albeit a small one. The post I quoted is still patently wrong, as is yours.

I'm going to punch a bit outside my warfare for the sake of a good debate. While yes DDG's and CG's are geared now more than ever for Air Defense and BMD, I think we can safely assume we all understand what the anti-ship capabilities of our peer competitors are, and I think we can also say that it could be some scary stuff for those of us riding around on grey hulled ships. Really we do need a SIPR so we can actually debate this out, but it takes ONE missile to lose a small boy. One. It's not going to be one or two missiles being fired at each ship. I think Chancellorville's drone strike a few years ago illustrates that pretty well. One drone, without a warhead, disabled the ship from conducting her mission. I know it was an accident and they weren't going to actually engage the drone with RAM or CWIS, but its definitely an eye opener. Keep in mind also, not a single one of the vessels in the combat logistics fleet has missile defense capabilities, so good luck sustaining combat operations without an oiler or AOE.

http://news.usni.org/2014/06/27/document-investigation-uss-chancellorsville-drone-strike

 

[azguy]

I'm going to punch a bit outside my warfare for the sake of a good debate. While yes DDG's and CG's are geared now more than ever for Air Defense and BMD, I think we can safely assume we all understand what the anti-ship capabilities of our peer competitors are, and I think we can also say that it could be some scary stuff for those of us riding around on grey hulled ships. Really we do need a SIPR so we can actually debate this out, but it takes ONE missile to lose a small boy. One. It's not going to be one or two missiles being fired at each ship. I think Chancellorville's drone strike a few years ago illustrates that pretty well. One drone, without a warhead, disabled the ship from conducting her mission. I know it was an accident and they weren't going to actually engage the drone with RAM or CWIS, but its definitely an eye opener. Keep in mind also, not a single one of the vessels in the combat logistics fleet has missile defense capabilities, so good luck sustaining combat operations without an oiler or AOE.

You make a good point that it really only takes one hit to achieve a mission kill of a small boy for some period of time. No argument from me there. I still think that you are buying into some hype of how fantastic all of these missiles are...

On the Chancellorsville piece, keep in mind that was a test of a very specific part of the ship's automated weapons system. As such, the crew and other automated defenses weren't configured to take out that drone. It's an unfortunate situation to be sure, but it's not a realistic representation of how that ship would have been configured and manned if she were deployed.

 

[BigRed389]

While yes DDG's and CG's are geared now more than ever for Air Defense and BMD, I think we can safely assume we all understand what the anti-ship capabilities of our peer competitors are, and I think we can also say that it could be some scary stuff for those of us riding around on grey hulled ships.

Uh, no, we can't. Because unless you know both the classified performance data of those missiles and the AWS cap's and lim's, your opinion is based on something between jack and shit.

Really we do need a SIPR so we can actually debate this out,

Believe it or not, this stuff actually is studied pretty extensively by several different organizations (if you're going to spend billions of dollars developing a missile defense, doing some S&T analysis is generally considered a good idea), so if this was on SIPR it wouldn't be a debate because the numbers have already been crunched.

but it takes ONE missile to lose a small boy. One. It's not going to be one or two missiles being fired at each ship.

I have no idea where exactly you're going with this, but the fact is, while any defense can be saturated (send enough screaming conscripts and eventually they could theoretically run out of bullets) putting together a mass salvo against a fast moving target that's also trying not to be found while you're getting shot at against sensor and comms jamming is pretty hard.

I think Chancellorville's drone strike a few years ago illustrates that pretty well. One drone, without a warhead, disabled the ship from conducting her mission. I know it was an accident and they weren't going to actually engage the drone with RAM or CWIS, but its definitely an eye opener.

All it proves is that getting hit in the sweet spot sucks. That drone wound up going in pretty much the worst spot possible. I have no idea why anybody would get some sort of special revelation out of this. Even then, they wouldn't have totally been out of the fight, as other systems remained up. And as azguy already pointed out, there were several other layers it would have had to get through just to get as far as it did before they called loss of control.

Keep in mind also, not a single one of the vessels in the combat logistics fleet has missile defense capabilities, so good luck sustaining combat operations without an oiler or AOE.

They had these crazy things during WW2. I think they called them "convoys." Is that a thing?

 

[hscs]

I think folks are missing the point, and the author of the original article would use some of the arguments on this thread that we are wedded to older thinking.

My thoughts:

1) The world had similar arguments in the 20s-30s with the battleship vs aircraft carrier.

2) The 'no lower than' number of aircraft carriers has shrunk from 15 to 11 over the span of my career - and $ will only get tighter. Over that time, 'smart' weapons have become more abundant - so much that one weapon will do the trick as opposed to 12 'dumb' weapons. We also seem to be on the cusp of having an 'first night' strike aircraft - capable of being launched from both L class and CVNs.

3) CNAS isn't just your average, everyday think tank - they are quite influential - it was founded by former USD(Policy) Flournoy. You can bet these papers are not just being debated on threads like this one.

4) I like the idea of a few more smaller carriers that we could put in more places, but can't seem to get around the - 'what about AEW / airborne C2 and EA?' question. We can't rely on land based because a land base is even more of a target.

 

[Pags]

I think folks are missing the point, and the author of the original article would use some of the arguments on this thread that we are wedded to older thinking.

My thoughts:

1) The world had similar arguments in the 20s-30s with the battleship vs aircraft carrier.

2) The 'no lower than' number of aircraft carriers has shrunk from 15 to 11 over the span of my career - and $ will only get tighter. Over that time, 'smart' weapons have become more abundant - so much that one weapon will do the trick as opposed to 12 'dumb' weapons. We also seem to be on the cusp of having an 'first night' strike aircraft - capable of being launched from both L class and CVNs.

3) CNAS isn't just your average, everyday think tank - they are quite influential - it was founded by former USD(Policy) Flournoy. You can bet these papers are not just being debated on threads like this one.

4) I like the idea of a few more smaller carriers that we could put in more places, but can't seem to get around the - 'what about AEW / airborne C2 and EA?' question. We can't rely on land based because a land base is even more of a target.

USN and USMC missed the boat when they made the LHA/Ds straight decks. If they'd had an angle an already very flexible platform could have been even more flexible.

 

[jmcquate]

USN and USMC missed the boat when they made the LHA/Ds straight decks. If they'd had an angle an already very flexible platform could have been even more flexible.

No, their purpose is to schlep a MEU anywhere around the globe. Deck,hanger and welldeck space is at a premium. Slinging Hornets isn't in the cards.

 

[jmcquate]

AS airborne assets has been the bugaboo for CVs for about 40 years (AIM-54 and AWG-9 kids........read about it). Ya, the missile technology has gotten better, but I'm sure our defense have also. The game goes on.

 

[BigRed389]

1) The world had similar arguments in the 20s-30s with the battleship vs aircraft carrier.

It's similar, but there are some key differences.

The battleship pre-WW2 was going to win the decisive battle at sea. That was pretty much it...after that, we just kinda went "sea control" and handwaved away the ground fight that would follow.

CSGs bring much more utility with a big deck CVN as the centerpiece that go well beyond just defeating an enemy navy.
And honestly, I think there's a pretty well accepted idea that the SSN force is expected to be tasked to stomp any fleet silly enough to venture out to engage us in a blue water fight far off from their shores.

Where it gets muddy is when you have to put a CSG up against everything a near peer could bring, combining land based air, sensors, and missiles supporting their Fleet at sea. And if you're trying to fight all that, I don't see any way to give yourself favorable odds except by simply having more and better everything, platforms, sensors, weapons, all of it.
But as far as I can tell, the author doesn't really have any suggestions other than to spend some carrier and R&D money to rebalance Fleet numbers to bring up the ship count in order to complicate the enemy's A2AD targeting problem.

That's just pumping up defense at the expense of limiting your offense. Which may be what we need...but hardly "rethinking Navy power projection strategy."
And dumping R&D for future technologies isn't particularly a great idea either, since technological advantage is a fragile thing.
Trying to play hide and seek with SAGs of CRUDES popping off long range TLAM shots (targeted with...what exactly?) isn't going to do any better than a big deck CVN CSG at power projection in either a high or low threat environment.

*I also love how he rolls up cost per bomb dropped as Hornet lifecycle cost+personnel costs/bombs dropped against straight up procurement cost of a Tomahawk. Guess TLAM+VLS+DDG O&M costs don't matter.

 

[Randy Daytona]

Where it gets muddy is when you have to put a CSG up against everything a near peer could bring, combining land based air, sensors, and missiles supporting their Fleet at sea. And if you're trying to fight all that, I don't see any way to give yourself favorable odds except by simply having more and better everything, platforms, sensors, weapons, all of it.
But as far as I can tell, the author doesn't really have any suggestions other than to spend some carrier and R&D money to rebalance Fleet numbers to bring up the ship count in order to complicate the enemy's A2AD targeting problem.

That's just pumping up defense at the expense of limiting your offense. Which may be what we need...but hardly "rethinking Navy power projection strategy."

Another author brought up the idea of using smaller, less expensive combatants for the vast majority of missions and leaving the carriers in port until needed for rare but massive displays of force by sending 3, 4, or 5 carrier task groups at a time.

 

[Brett327]

Another author brought up the idea of using smaller, less expensive combatants for the vast majority of missions and leaving the carriers in port until needed for rare but massive displays of force by sending 3, 4, or 5 carrier task groups at a time.

But, think of the lead time required to get those assets in place. With the exception of FDNF, it would take far too much time for most scenarios I can imagine. Having 2-3 CSGs constantly patrolling likely hot spots is one of the reasons that a CSG is as effective as it is - it's available and responsive to immediate tasking. Yemen is a recent example.

 

[Hopeful Hoya]

Another author brought up the idea of using smaller, less expensive combatants for the vast majority of missions and leaving the carriers in port until needed for rare but massive displays of force by sending 3, 4, or 5 carrier task groups at a time.

That sounds dangerously close to the Decisive Battle strategy pursued by the IJN in WWII.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kantai_Kessen

 

[Uncle Fester]

Another author brought up the idea of using smaller, less expensive combatants for the vast majority of missions and leaving the carriers in port until needed for rare but massive displays of force by sending 3, 4, or 5 carrier task groups at a time.

I think that was a SWO who floated that idea (see what I did there?). Great idea except that you can't just keep a CVN/CVW team on the shelf until war breaks out. At least not if you expect them to be able to operate and fight with any confidence. It takes a lot of work to get the Boat and Air Wing working together smoothly, and practice and repetition to make it safe and consistent. Having everyone fart around in US waters doesn't really save any money...flight time and underway time costs what it costs whether you're off of Iraq or Virginia Beach.

But never mind that...that whole strategy is idiotic. The value carriers provide isn't strictly kinetic ordinance delivery - if that's all you want, we can fly big bombers direct from CONUS. Their value is in presence and response time, which you don't get in port back home. Keeping the Boats home until a war breaks out? What if having a CSG hanging off the coast prevents a war in the first place?

 

[Duc'-guy25]

I still think that you are buying into some hype of how fantastic all of these missiles are...

Fair enough, and from someone that knows more than I. We can assume they're not as capable as advertised, and that the Air Defense and BDM capabilities are what we hope they are, then the entire argument that the carrier is obsolete and vulnerable goes out the window since one of the primary roles of the CG, in coordination with the rest of the strike group, is Air Defense. I really don't think the DF-21 is the end all carrier killer as advertised since its never been shot at a moving target that was defending itself both ballistically and electronically and hundreds of miles away.

Even then, they wouldn't have totally been out of the fight, as other systems remained up.

And as azguy already pointed out, there were several other layers it would have had to get through just to get as far as it did before they called loss of control.

"As the CO returned fire with his Beretta M9 from the bridgewing" comes to mind. As you said, azguy already made the points. I know where the drone hit, I thought it would've been hard to put up a meaningful fight had that been a missile. I can't think of too many weapon systems that would still have been online after, but you'd know more than I. Yes your point is valid, it was by chance the sweet spot. But I'll surrender, I told you I was stepping outside my warfare on this one.

They had these crazy things during WW2. I think they called them "convoys." Is that a thing?

Yes we do have a surge sealift capability. However, its to get gear into theatre, not to the fight, and very little of it is geared toward actually supporting the Navy. Very few, if any, of the RRF has FAS or RAS capabilities as far as delivering. We only have 15 oilers and 4 T-AOE's (of which 2 are in ROS), and those are certainly not going to be convoyed since they're supporting multiple strike groups and surface combatants. Convoys work for merchant ships crossing the ocean, not for the CLF ships. CLF ships are assigned to a theatre or strike group. If you take out the 4 or 5 oilers operating the the theatre, you're SOL as far as UNREP capabilities. Whether you like it or not, the T-AOE or T-AO/AKE combo are pretty high on the important ship list to the CSG/ESG. JP5 and DFM go fast in sustained combat operations.