New Maritime Strategy

[Pags]

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.

I agree that hanger space is at a premium, I always had to double up coats and jersies on my hangers

They could still schelp a MEU with an angle. But now the MEU could have Hornets vice Harriers if you need a bigger stick.

This is to say nothing of the LHD's secondary Sea Control mission. You could have hornet top cover vice AV-8 (because I tend to think it might be hard to squeeze AV-8s out of the USMC to cover ASW ops).

 

[Duc'-guy25]

Deck,hanger and welldeck space is at a premium.

Since the LHA's no longer have well decks, can we assume the purpose of an LHA is now solely launch and recover aircraft? As stated before, F-35B are rolling out, it'll be interesting to see what the LHA/F-35B role might be squeezed into other than putting a MEU on the beach.

 

[Pags]

Since the LHA's no longer have well decks, can we assume the purpose of an LHA is now solely launch and recover aircraft? As stated before, F-35B are rolling out, it'll be interesting to see what the LHA/F-35B role might be squeezed into other than putting a MEU on the beach.

LHAs post-Tripoli will have well decks. So you'll be back to parking your LHA with 6 F-35Bs on it 1-2mi off a hostile coast.

 

[Flash]

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.

One thing remember is that there are several countries who have fielded or are developing threat systems directly geared to go against us and our weapon systems, we are the biggest and baddest navy on the block after all. So while you may be an expert at air defense there are folks on the other end who are working just as hard to kill you as you are them. Some of these folks have the money, means and motivation to figure out new and creative ways to do so. There is some scary stuff out there and while we are working hard to make sure to counter them it doesn't mean those things will work as advertised.

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.

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.

This is not a new idea, welcome back to the early '70's when ADM Zumwalt pushed the Sea Control Ship. The problem with it? Carrier advocates rightfully saw it as a threat to the 'supercarriers' when the average Joe/Jane Schmo congressman would not care what type of carrier we have as long as we have the right number. Eleven carriers is eleven carriers, who cares if they are SCS's or CVN's? Not only that but you take a very significant decrease in capability, what took the Brits to do in a month with two similar light carriers in the Falklands could have been done in days with a single 'supercarrier'.

So there are good reasons not to go the 'light carrier/SCS' route, both practical and political.

 

[azguy]

One thing remember is that there are several countries who have fielded or are developing threat systems directly geared to go against us and our weapon systems, we are the biggest and baddest navy on the block after all. So while you may be an expert at air defense there are folks on the other end who are working just as hard to kill you as you are them. Some of these folks have the money, means and motivation to figure out new and creative ways to do so. There is some scary stuff out there and while we are working hard to make sure to counter them it doesn't mean those things will work as advertised.

Yes, it's all part of a game. From talking to old crusty guys, the ASCMs and A/S-XXs that scared the shit out of them in the 80s and 90s are now considered primitive. "They" continue to build better missiles and air frames from which to employ them. We, in turn, get sexy new countermeasures, better defenses systems, and smarter tactics. These threats shouldn't ever be discounted or trivialized, but being cynical, I have to think there is some fear mongering churned up in the Pentagon and big contracting companies to keep the money flowing.

 

[Flash]

....These threats shouldn't ever be discounted or trivialized, but being cynical, I have to think there is some fear mongering churned up in the Pentagon and big contracting companies to keep the money flowing.

Unfortunately for us some of it isn't just fearmongering.

 

[Pags]

This is not a new idea, welcome back to the early '70's when ADM Zumwalt pushed the Sea Control Ship. The problem with it? Carrier advocates rightfully saw it as a threat to the 'supercarriers' when the average Joe/Jane Schmo congressman would not care what type of carrier we have as long as we have the right number. Eleven carriers is eleven carriers, who cares if they are SCS's or CVN's? Not only that but you take a very significant decrease in capability, what took the Brits to do in a month with two similar light carriers in the Falklands could have been done in days with a single 'supercarrier'.

So there are good reasons not to go the 'light carrier/SCS' route, both practical and political.

Yeah, I'm aware of the Sea Control Ship. Like I said, the LHA/Ds still have Sea Control as a secondary mission. But I'm imaging less like a Sea Control ship which was envisioned as VSTOL only and instead more like an SCB-125 Essex class CV. The LHD and the Essex CVs are essentially the same size. An LHD with an angled deck could still conduct it's MEU mission but could also take on board a scaled down CVW for other missions or if you needed a bigger punch. Already dropped the Marines off at the beach and the MEUs ashore? Bring on board some Hornets and you have another 20 strikers available.

You'd probably need to lose the well deck, but that can go. Parking a big ship with that many expensive airplanes close to shore is silly. Use an MLP to handle the LCAC/LCU missions and let the LHA/D stay outside of potential WEZs.

 

[Spekkio]

These threats shouldn't ever be discounted or trivialized, but being cynical, I have to think there is some fear mongering churned up in the Pentagon and big contracting companies to keep the money flowing.

Conversely, I think that there are some who vastly over-estimate a ship's ability to counter such a threat if it works as advertised.

 

[azguy]

Conversely, I think that there are some who vastly over-estimate a ship's ability to counter such a threat if it works as advertised.

No doubt. Frankly, you see it more from people with less experience. There are some people who think that all you have to do is turn that magic key and the ship will do all of the work for you.

 

[hscs]

This is not a new idea, welcome back to the early '70's when ADM Zumwalt pushed the Sea Control Ship. .

Funny - on my staff tour, a contractor told me "there are no new ideas here. We just recycle the old ones and call them new."

 

[squorch2]

"...and charge double."

 

[Uncle Fester]

Funny - on my staff tour, a contractor told me "there are no new ideas here. We just recycle the old ones and call them new."

Well, yeah. There hasn't been a big-ass, fleet-vs-fleet war in 70 years. That's where the new ideas germinate, and take hold of the collective tribal memory. The war in the Pacific has driven carrier design and tactics in one form or another ever since.

 

[jmcquate]

A carrier is a delivery system for what has actually changed naval warfare.........aircraft and missiles. The airborne assets will be around for a while, the real question is how best to deploy them. I still believe CVs are the best option and any potential adversary (or ally for that matter) would build and deploy them if they could.

 

[Randy Daytona]

A carrier is a delivery system for what has actually changed naval warfare.........aircraft and missiles. The airborne assets will be around for a while, the real question is how best to deploy them. I still believe CVs are the best option and any potential adversary (or ally for that matter) would build and deploy them if they could.

Interesting article just appeared: http://theweek.com/articles/557433/navy-risking-everything-fatally-flawed-technology

The article also had a very poignant link to the program for the 1941 Army - Navy football game - 1 week before Pearl Harbor. There is a classic bow shot of the U.S.S. Arizona with the following caption: “A bow on view of the U.S.S. Arizona as she plows into a huge swell. It is significant that despite the claims of air enthusiasts no battleship has yet been sunk by bombs.”

https://collectableivy.wordpress.com/2009/02/22/army-navy-program-1941-uss-arizona/