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

[Randy Daytona]

Guess it took a lot of powerful nonsensical people to propose this experiment. All I will say is it all depends on how you define a Carrier. No it isn't a CVN with the notional CVW embarked. CVAs and CVSs had limitations, but we made it work. They were aircraft carriers. If as suggested the lessons learned are about deck spots, cyclic rate etc, then, if you need this configuration, all limitations will be known.

The Commandant has really made some changes concerning the divestment of all tanks, substantial amounts of tube artillery and a reduction in rotary aircraft as they are not as relevant to future conflicts in the Pacific. Likewise, there has been a removal of the mandate for the current size and structure of the amphibious fleet (38 amphibs, 2.0 MEB requirement) with the Commandant preferring a new light amphibious warship similar to the Army’s Frank S. Besson class which are roughly 300 ft long and 4,000 tons.

If the Marines continued this push to much smaller but more numerous amphibs, theoretically, how else could you use the large amphibs currently in the fleet?

From the Commandant’s planning guidance:

Marine Expeditionary Units and Forward Deployed Forces
As Commandant Krulak noted nearly 25 years ago, the Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU) “is the jewel in our crown, and must be kept ready, relevant, and capable.” Regrettably, it no longer has the same relevance as it once had to the Fleet; however, this will change. We will consider employment models of the Amphibious Ready Group (ARG) / MEU other than the traditional three-ship model. We will accept and prepare for Fleet Commander employment of LHA/Ds as part of three- ship ESGs as desired. I see potential in the “Lightning Carrier” concept, based on an LHA / LHD; however, do not support a new-build CVL. Partnering a big-deck amphib with surface combatants is the right warfighting capability for many of the challenges confronting the joint force, and provides substantial naval and Joint operational flexibility, lethality, and survivability.

Good review below:

https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R46374/39

and the Frank S. Besson class ship:

General Frank S. Besson-class support vessel - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[Griz882]

Here’s a fun, easy read to help define a “carrier.”

Aircraft Carrier 100 – Celebrate America's aircraft carriers and personnel that have formed the most powerful at-sea platform for force projection and diplomacy that the world has ever seen

aircraftcarrier100.com

 

[Flash]

Agree, that is the all purpose CV concept. But historicly we have had other carriers. CVS, CVA, CVE, etc. Even under current CONOPS, we operate Harriers off gators without the support mentioned. It isn't like DDGs and CGs can't provide AEW. And although we can't discuss it here, sooner or later F-35s will have some sort of EW capability.

They can't provide AEW, unless they contracted with S.H.I.E.L.D. and can fly now.

AEW is a critical component of a modern carrier air wing, without it a carrier is vulnerable to any modern anti-ship threat as the Brits found out in the Falklands and why their fix for that was so rapidly implemented.

I was under the impression the Brits have a RW AEW platform for the QE?

Yes, both the Brits and the Italians use versions of the AW101 to provide AEW capability to their carriers but they are much more limited than an E-2 and we will not invest in such a capability. The radar the Brits use is a modification of the one they originally installed on their Sea King AEW birds 40 years ago that itself was a modified surface-search radar on their Nimrods. Far from ideal.



The Russians have their own version based on the Ka-31 that they've apparently sold the Indians, and China has an AEW helo too.

An LHA is not a carrier, but a modified version of aviation combat element. Both a CVN and LHA need support from the Air Force for the next fight.

The amount and level of support that a CSG would need versus a 'CSG' centered around an LHA/D or two would be MUCH different, with an LHA/D needing FAR more external support.

 

[Flash]

The train wreck that is the LCS continues to provide plenty of fodder for procurement critics and lizard-esque bloggers to chew on, with the Navy apparently proposing to scrap not just the first 4 LCS's but now between 8-10 of them. Billions $ wasted on what has turned out to be either a fast Coast Guard cutter, if the engines are working, or a big missile patrol boat that can carry a helo. At least 4th Fleet will finally be able to unironically call itself a fleet when they get a few of these that work.

 

[wink]

They can't provide AEW, unless they contracted with S.H.I.E.L.D. and can fly now.

AEW is a critical component of a modern carrier air wing, without it a carrier is vulnerable to any modern anti-ship threat as the Brits found out in the Falklands and why their fix for that was so rapidly implemented.



Yes, both the Brits and the Italians use versions of the AW101 to provide AEW capability to their carriers but they are much more limited than an E-2 and we will not invest in such a capability. The radar the Brits use is a modification of the one they originally installed on their Sea King AEW birds 40 years ago that itself was a modified surface-search radar on their Nimrods. Far from ideal.

View attachment 34706

The Russians have their own version based on the Ka-31 that they've apparently sold the Indians, and China has an AEW helo too.



The amount and level of support that a CSG would need versus a 'CSG' centered around an LHA/D or two would be MUCH different, with an LHA/D needing FAR more external support.

I can't disagree. Am well aware. This is really about what defines an aircraft carrier. Not it's CVW, mission set or even it's survivability. Those have varied over the decades.

They can't provide AEW, unless they contracted with S.H.I.E.L.D. and can fly now.

Got me. But you get my meaning. Red Crown famously provided early warning in the Vietnam war.

 

[SynixMan]

The train wreck that is the LCS continues to provide plenty of fodder for procurement critics and lizard-esque bloggers to chew on, with the Navy apparently proposing to scrap not just the first 4 LCS's but now between 8-10 of them. Billions $ wasted on what has turned out to be either a fast Coast Guard cutter, if the engines are working, or a big missile patrol boat that can carry a helo. At least 4th Fleet will finally be able to unironically call itself a fleet when they get a few of these that work.

Agreed. Every time I think about how we could've bought something like the Europeans have with their frigates, it makes my head hurt. Instead we have 3 Zumwalt's, a bunch of worthless LCS, and more Flight IV Burkes.

 

[wink]

Agreed. Every time I think about how we could've bought something like the Europeans have with their frigates, it makes my head hurt. Instead we have 3 Zumwalt's, a bunch of worthless LCS, and more Flight IV Burkes.

And it wasn't like there weren't enough people opposed, and with good arguments. After the A-12 and 3G Intruder wings in my day, I didn't think I'd see it that bad again. No, worse. No one with LCS stink on them should ever work again. But alas, they do.

 

[Flash]

Got me. But you get my meaning. Red Crown famously provided early warning in the Vietnam war.

The Vietnamese didn't have ASCM's, or really any credible anti-ship capability at all.

 

[wink]

The Vietnamese didn't have ASCM's, or really any credible anti-ship capability at all.

So you are telling me that a US AEGIS CG can not detect or defend against ASCMs? That they can not detect and vector fighters to ASCM armed aircraft? That all surface vessels require a CVW to defend them from ASCMs? Serious question as I have been out of the game awhile. But if that is the case, we have bigger problems then deploying a big deck gator with a couple squadrons of F-35s without a CVN in company.

The point was that CGs, operating as Red Crown, provided early warning and vectors to airborne threats. Our more capable CGs and DDGs could provide the same service to an airwing without organic AEW. And of course, AWACs may be employed. Sadly, we already lean too heavily on the USAF these days. But it proves not all the answers are in a CVW.

 

[Brett327]

So you are telling me that a US AEGIS CG can not detect or defend against ASCMs? That they can not detect and vector fighters to ASCM armed aircraft? That all surface vessels require a CVW to defend them from ASCMs? Serious question as I have been out of the game awhile. But if that is the case, we have bigger problems then deploying a big deck gator with a couple squadrons of F-35s without a CVN in company.

The point was that CGs, operating as Red Crown, provided early warning and vectors to airborne threats. Our more capable CGs and DDGs could provide the same service to an airwing without organic AEW. And of course, AWACs may be employed. Sadly, we already lean too heavily on the USAF these days. But it proves not all the answers are in a CVW.

AEGIS has a lot of great capabilities, but if you've ever manned a DCA lane that's controlled by the ship, you know that's not something they do that well compared to an E-2. There's more to effective C2 than having a great radar and the ability to shoot leakers. E-2 provides pretty robust battle management functions that AEGIS just doesn't have. Tough to discuss the ASCM threat in an unclass setting, but at some point AEGIS is limited by the radar horizon, which is kind of a big deal when going after targets that tend to approach at very low altitudes.

 

[wink]

AEGIS has a lot of great capabilities, but if you've ever manned a DCA lane that's controlled by the ship, you know that's not something they do that well compared to an E-2. There's more to effective C2 than having a great radar and the ability to shoot leakers. E-2 provides pretty robust battle management functions that AEGIS just doesn't have. Tough to discuss the ASCM threat in an unclass setting, but at some point AEGIS is limited by the radar horizon, which is kind of a big deal when going after targets that tend to approach at very low altitudes.

Then AWACs it is. As the CVW all to often requires USAF gas, the nascent CVL simply requires the same level of joint support. ?

 

[Flash]

So you are telling me that a US AEGIS CG can not detect or defend against ASCMs? That they can not detect and vector fighters to ASCM armed aircraft? That all surface vessels require a CVW to defend them from ASCMs? Serious question as I have been out of the game awhile. But if that is the case, we have bigger problems then deploying a big deck gator with a couple squadrons of F-35s without a CVN in company.

AEGIS has a lot of great capabilities, but if you've ever manned a DCA lane that's controlled by the ship, you know that's not something they do that well compared to an E-2. There's more to effective C2 than having a great radar and the ability to shoot leakers. E-2 provides pretty robust battle management functions that AEGIS just doesn't have. Tough to discuss the ASCM threat in an unclass setting, but at some point AEGIS is limited by the radar horizon, which is kind of a big deal when going after targets that tend to approach at very low altitudes.

@Brett327 hit the nail on the head, it comes down to simple geometry as radar can't see through the earth and detect something at low level over the horizon. This is a problem even of your vintage and well before, starting with trying to counter the kamikazes at Okinawa with Project Cadillac equipping PB-1W's and Avengers with APS-20's.

More contemporary for you the Brits had a very serious problem with Exocets the Argentinean Navy had along with the Argentinian Air Force attack aircraft that came in at low level over West Falkland to attack the ships landing the invasion force and their escorts. In the case of the Exocets the DDG's and FFG's were sometimes able to detect the Exocets themselves but with only seconds to spare and usually too late to do much at all costing the Brits two ships sunk from just 5 air-launched Exocets. For the AAF attackers they were often only detected visually on their attack runs against ships in the Falkland Sound or by ships in much more vulnerable radar picket positions, just like we had off Okinawa in WWII, but that came at the cost of at least one DDG sunk. The Brits knew this was such a serious problem they built and fielded AEW Sea Kings in about 3 months.

Then AWACs it is. As the CVW all to often requires USAF gas, the nascent CVL simply requires the same level of joint support. ?

That's what the Brits relied on when they retired their Gannet AEW aircraft, didn't work out well for them.

 

[wink]

....they can not detect and vector fighters to ASCM armed aircraft?

@Flash I understand the limitations of radar vis a vis radar horizon. Those physics have not changed since I operated airborne radar. It is my expectation that an AEGIS CG can shoot down ASCM launching aircraft. I understand details as to what enemy ASCM system and which aircraft will determine how far out from the launch window they can be engaged. And I don't expect answers in these pages. But to go back to the origins of this threadjack, if an AEGIS system can not defend against ASCMs, through direct engagement or launch aircraft, we have big problems beyond defending a so called CVL.

​

 

[Brett327]

ASCM launching aircraft. I understand details as to what enemy ASCM system and which aircraft will determine how far out from the launch window they can be engaged. And I don't expect answers in these pages. But to go back to the origins of this threadjack, if an AEGIS system can not defend against ASCMs, through direct engagement or launch aircraft, we have big problems beyond defending a so called CVL.

Not if the ASCMs range exceeds the ability of AEGIS to engage. We don’t have to get into specifics to understand that fighters and capable battle management aircraft are the CSG’s first line of defense… not AEGIS. This isn’t a particularly new concept.

 

[Flash]

@Flash I understand the limitations of radar vis a vis radar horizon. Those physics have not changed since I operated airborne radar. It is my expectation that an AEGIS CG can shoot down ASCM launching aircraft. I understand details as to what enemy ASCM system and which aircraft will determine how far out from the launch window they can be engaged. And I don't expect answers in these pages. But to go back to the origins of this threadjack, if an AEGIS system can not defend against ASCMs, through direct engagement or launch aircraft, we have big problems beyond defending a so called CVL.

​

Not if the ASCMs range exceeds the ability of AEGIS to engage. We don’t have to get into specifics to understand that fighters and capable battle management aircraft are the CSG’s first line of defense… not AEGIS. This isn’t a particularly new concept.

Geometry remains a problem. As ASCM's have gained in capability and proliferation they've also gained in range to a point where aircraft or ships can launch them from relative safety from a target much like they did in Red Storm Rising, where the Backfires only suffered at the hands of defending carrier aircraft (Aéronavale F-8's) and not the ships of the battle group.

Simply put, a carrier battle/strike group cannot effectively operate in a contested environment without AEW.