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

[BigRed389]

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.

It takes a few years from cutting steel to get a DDG today. Somewhere between 2-3 years to get the ship through all of construction and the entire tests and trials programs. Another year or so to get them fully through work ups.

You can’t really crash the schedule using overtime labor because the labor force already does shift work.
You could probably cut the test period and work up periods in an emergency, but too much gets risky.

As already pointed out elsewhere, we’ll fight the next war with the Fleet we have. New ships coming off the line will be arriving as reinforcements only because they were already well along in the construction and delivery process.
There’s also the fact that roughly a third of the Fleet will not be materially available for tasking, they’ll be in shipyards going through overhauls.

 

[robav8r]

This is an excellent read that speaks to the manner in which we turned the entire U.S. economy around to support the war effort and requirements in the early days of WW-II. I’ve read it twice, once for personal interest, the second time for the Eisenhower Curriculum. Definitely worth you time . . . .

 

[Griz882]

As already pointed out elsewhere, we’ll fight the next war with the Fleet we have.

I agree, but with reference with your closing point above, is that the kind of “steam power will never replace sails” thinking we are to expect from today’s strategic planners? To hell with that, I’ve been on the killing side of a war that was fought with “the army we have” and the result was a stunning demonstration of idle thinking by those charged with planning for the next war. It should not be the job of strategic planners to fight the next war with the fleet we have, but to win it with any tool we can imagine and eventually acquire.

 

[Randy Daytona]

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.

The Atlantic Conveyor was a 15,000 ton container ship hit by 2 Exocets. Here is the destroyer HMS Sheffield hit by 1 Exocet before it went down.

I would be interested to see the Navy purchase an old supertanker and an old container ship, spend some money to enhance their survivability, then see how much damage they could take in a controlled test firing. I did speak to a friend who was a former merchant mariner concerning the ability to withstand damage and he mentioned the same items: massive reserve buoyancy, double hulls, fire suppression, etc even before beginning to enhance the design for more protection. In a 200,000 ton tanker, the entire weight of destroyer would be a decimal place, the weapons system weight would be a rounding error.

As supertankers bow design is going to have them in the 16 knot range tops, I would venture the first place would be to supplement naval surface fire support for the ARG. A modular concept of bolt on weapons systems would be the most inexpensive, and perhaps most versatile. (As I mentioned earlier, the Marines have tried HIMARS from amphibious ships as the ability of the Navy to provide fire support for the Marines continues to decline.) If the threat changed, bolt on a different missile system and have a poor man's surface action group. Deck space - as in the Lewis B Puller example earlier - is rather large so helicopter / tilt-rotor landing spots would allow the Marines more flexibility for rotor wing support.
From the Marine Corps Operating Concept of 2016. https://www.mcwl.marines.mil/Portal...ConceptSept2016.pdf?ver=2016-12-02-073359-207

Explore alternative approaches to power projection given the limited capacity of the Naval force to deploy Marines in a standard ARG/MEU formation, which results from the fixed inventory of L-class amphibious warfare ships.  Integrate MAGTFs operating from amphibious warfare ships, expeditionary land bases, and auxiliary ships with other forward-postured Navy and SOF elements.

To improve our ability to fight at and from the sea, we must: Develop alternative employment methods and augment amphibious warfare ships by modifying other vessels for sea-based littoral operations.  Refine existing Maritime Prepositioning Force (MPF) capabilities to support afloat forces and a range of crisis operations.

As for taking up too much money, this is not a one to one tradeoff - unless you are comparing one modified tanker to one LCS. With the new Lewis B Puller estimated at $500 million - so if the Zumwalt was $7.5 billion all in, then it would be multiple conversions for the price of one cruiser - that does not have shells for it main guns... How much a few used tankers would go for as a proof of concept, I would imagine it would be substantially less.

 

[nittany03]

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.

And there was a reason for the standing joke that CVE stood for "Combustible, Vulnerable, Expendable." Have another one . . .

 

[Duc'-guy25]

With the new Lewis B Puller estimated at $500 million

Only the government can take a maybe 100 million dollar hull and make it cost 500 million...

I also wouldn't overestimate Puller's survivability in a combat scenario, the hull form may be from a "light" VLCC Panamax, but its significantly different, especially considering a lot of it's reserve buoyancy is gone. It also wasn't designed to go operate in contested areas, rather just a floating staging area. Yes, a traditional tanker is survivable, but its construction is very compartmentalized. For a 120,000 DWT ship you're looking at like 20ish separate tanks just for cargo inside the inner hull that were designed to be filled with a liquid. I don't think double hulls offer the type of protection you think it does. The point of a double hull isn't to absorb damage, its to prevent spills after some dumbass played chicken with some rocks up in Alaska. The hull is only as thick as my MacBook. Most bulk/break bulk/container ships are designed as 2-3 compartment ships though (they're only designed to float with that many flooded).

Overall merchant ships aren't that survivable to things other than collisions. Modern ships are almost considered disposable, a VLCC pays itself off on its first voyage. Most ship owners sell off their ships in 10-15 years because the hulls and propulsion are worn out. I wouldn't base survivability on how a tanker takes a mine either. Yea they're deadly to warships just due to CRUDES's size. I would be afraid of torpedos and missiles if I were standing on the bridge of a tanker or cargo ship in the middle of a shooting war, especially with a magazine full of missiles. One of the biggest dangers of a modern ship is breaking it in half, which is why loading a tanker or cargo is a big deal and there's certifications that go along with it. I don't think most ships today would handle a missile hit or two very well if its anything other than just impacting the side of the hull above the waterline. I know its unlikely they would take a torpedo and shrug it off. Good luck avoiding detection with the acoustic signature of an Metallica concert. I used to laugh when we would stream our Nixie...

Also, the US doesn't have many tankers just sitting around to begin with, especially VLCC/ULCC. Our merchant fleet is shockingly small, and equally shockingly old.

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.

Most of the supply department and a third of the deck and engineering departments would probably bail after the first USNS was lost. If you actually implemented this idea its most likely the manning would be dug out of the SSO community and then trying to track down SELRES and IRR OS/FC/GMs and SWO's to manage the tactical aspects and weapons. Big if.

 

[BigRed389]

I agree, but with reference with your closing point above, is that the kind of “steam power will never replace sails” thinking we are to expect from today’s strategic planners? To hell with that, I’ve been on the killing side of a war that was fought with “the army we have” and the result was a stunning demonstration of idle thinking by those charged with planning for the next war. It should not be the job of strategic planners to fight the next war with the fleet we have, but to win it with any tool we can imagine and eventually acquire.

It’s just the nature of a high intensity peer war. We will break our stuff faster than we can replace it at current build rates. Most of that comes down to only having a few very specialized production facilities that make our toys.

And if we somehow wind up with a war that drags on for enough time for production capacity to catch up...the other side has us beat in maritime industrial capacity.

We should certainly be imaginative, but if we want more missiles out at sea, we’re going to have to put more on the shelf now, because the factories simply won’t keep up with wartime usage rates.

 

[Randy Daytona]

Only the government can take a maybe 100 million dollar hull and make it cost 500 million...

I also wouldn't overestimate Puller's survivability in a combat scenario, the hull form may be from a "light" VLCC Panamax, but its significantly different, especially considering a lot of it's reserve buoyancy is gone. It also wasn't designed to go operate in contested areas, rather just a floating staging area. Yes, a traditional tanker is survivable, but its construction is very compartmentalized. For a 120,000 DWT ship you're looking at like 20ish separate tanks just for cargo inside the inner hull that were designed to be filled with a liquid. I don't think double hulls offer the type of protection you think it does. The point of a double hull isn't to absorb damage, its to prevent spills after some dumbass played chicken with some rocks up in Alaska. The hull is only as thick as my MacBook. Most bulk/break bulk/container ships are designed as 2-3 compartment ships though (they're only designed to float with that many flooded).

Overall merchant ships aren't that survivable to things other than collisions. Modern ships are almost considered disposable, a VLCC pays itself off on its first voyage. Most ship owners sell off their ships in 10-15 years because the hulls and propulsion are worn out. I wouldn't base survivability on how a tanker takes a mine either. Yea they're deadly to warships just due to CRUDES's size. I would be afraid of torpedos and missiles if I were standing on the bridge of a tanker or cargo ship in the middle of a shooting war, especially with a magazine full of missiles. One of the biggest dangers of a modern ship is breaking it in half, which is why loading a tanker or cargo is a big deal and there's certifications that go along with it. I don't think most ships today would handle a missile hit or two very well if its anything other than just impacting the side of the hull above the waterline. I know its unlikely they would take a torpedo and shrug it off. Good luck avoiding detection with the acoustic signature of an Metallica concert. I used to laugh when we would stream our Nixie...

Also, the US doesn't have many tankers just sitting around to begin with, especially VLCC/ULCC. Our merchant fleet is shockingly small, and equally shockingly old.




Most of the supply department and a third of the deck and engineering departments would probably bail after the first USNS was lost. If you actually implemented this idea its most likely the manning would be dug out of the SSO community and then trying to track down SELRES and IRR OS/FC/GMs and SWO's to manage the tactical aspects and weapons. Big if.

The modifications to the Puller make it evident that a substantial portion of its reserve buoyancy has been sacrificed for its new mission set. As I mentioned earlier, I would be very interested in taking an old tanker and an old container ship headed to the scrapyard and repurpose them into targets to see how well they would hold up under different forms of attack.

Meanwhile on issues of how to upgrade the amphibious forces, from Breaking Defense today,

Marines, Navy Wrestle With How To Upgun Amphibs
The Marines want Vertical Launch System missile tubes on their new amphibious ships -- but the Navy isn't planning to leave room for them.

https://breakingdefense.com/2019/01/marines-navy-wrestle-with-how-to-upgun-amphibs/

The amphibious ship USS San Antonio, LPD-17.

HiMARS Goes To Sea: US Marines Now Fire Guided Artillery Rockets From Ships

 

[Gatordev]

How many HiMARS launches does it take to decertify the flight deck?

 

[Brett327]

 

[nittany03]

This is an excellent read that speaks to the manner in which we turned the entire U.S. economy around to support the war effort and requirements in the early days of WW-II. I’ve read it twice, once for personal interest, the second time for the Eisenhower Curriculum. Definitely worth you time . . . .

Just a tidbit I didn't realize until writing one of my JPME papers: Apparently, there was not enough sealift in the US to both sustain the economy at then-current levels and support Operation Downfall. So had we invaded Japan, not only would the public have been expecting a peace dividend after V-E Day, they'd have gotten the opposite. A wrecked economy. I'm sure that would have gone over well.

 

[Jim123]

How many HiMARS launches does it take to decertify the flight deck?

I suspect this was not what Rumsfeld meant when he talked about transformation.

 

[Spekkio]

I agree, but with reference with your closing point above, is that the kind of “steam power will never replace sails” thinking we are to expect from today’s strategic planners? To hell with that, I’ve been on the killing side of a war that was fought with “the army we have” and the result was a stunning demonstration of idle thinking by those charged with planning for the next war. It should not be the job of strategic planners to fight the next war with the fleet we have, but to win it with any tool we can imagine and eventually acquire.

The offensive campaign in OIF was over in two weeks. It was faster than the Nazi invasions of Poland and Germany.

The strategic thinkers told then SECDEF Rumsfeld that we needed 2-3x the forces allocated to maintain the post offensive occupation and stand up a new government, in accordance with war plans that had been crafted and revised in the years before the war. Because of the potential political costs, Rumsfeld wouldn't budge.

The point is that 'the Army we have' is more than capable of bringing death and destruction to an adversary. It was because a politician wanted to change doctrine on the eve of a major campaign, despite being advised not to by Army leaders, that Iraq turned into such a protracted debacle.

 

[Spekkio]

It’s just the nature of a high intensity peer war. We will break our stuff faster than we can replace it at current build rates. Most of that comes down to only having a few very specialized production facilities that make our toys.

And if we somehow wind up with a war that drags on for enough time for production capacity to catch up...the other side has us beat in maritime industrial capacity.

We should certainly be imaginative, but if we want more missiles out at sea, we’re going to have to put more on the shelf now, because the factories simply won’t keep up with wartime usage rates.

Who is this peer adversary? What country can come close to our industrial output for ships and aircraft?

This 'near peer' boogeyman doesn't exist. Our Navy far exceeds the tonnage and capability of the next guy. Whatever they do have, they struggle to maintain even a small fraction operationally ready. That is why the bad guys are trying to come up with cheap ways to neutralize our ships with coastal defense options like drone swarms. They know that they cannot win a blue water conflict.

While I appreciate that we have to innovate to keep and improve the capability gap, the idea that someone can outproduce the US if a major naval conflict broke out in the near future is greatly exaggerated.

 

[Griz882]

Who is this peer adversary? What country can come close to our industrial output for ships and aircraft?

This 'near peer' boogeyman doesn't exist. Our Navy far exceeds the tonnage and capability of the next guy. Whatever they do have, they struggle to maintain even a small fraction operationally ready. That is why the bad guys are trying to come up with cheap ways to neutralize our ships with coastal defense options like drone swarms. They know that they cannot win a blue water conflict.

While I appreciate that we have to innovate to keep and improve the capability gap, the idea that someone can outproduce the US if a major naval conflict broke out in the near future is greatly exaggerated.

Maybe you need to catch up on your reading. According to ADM Davidson (IndoPACOM), “China is now capable of controlling the South China Sea in all scenarios short of war with the United States.” Davidson believes China is a “peer competitor” gaining on the United States not by matching its forces weapon by weapon but by building critical “asymmetrical capabilities,” including with anti-ship missiles and in submarine warfare. As he put it, bluntlily, in his report, “There is no guarantee that the United States would win a future conflict with China.”