Why would you send a single naval vessel into such an environment? In your example you mention a carrier battle group, this group includes a carrier, multiple surface warships, support ships, and probably a submarine or two. Would you really want to send a single vessel, however capable, into an area with threats literally coming at it from all directions?Oh jeez, this isn't even my topic.
But let's just say a "hot spot" with underwater, air, and surface combatants. Not allied waters, but allied bases nearby (couple hundred miles away). Ship is being sent as more of a warning (ala placing a CVBG between Taiwan and China) but needs to be able to defend itself should things go terribly wrong. Think Iranian, DPRK waters.
Spec-wise, I think advanced cruisers are the way to go for that kind of situation.
Best Multi-Role Warship?
- Thread starter gforce
- Start date
Yes, that would work, if we had an unlimited amount of ships. But more often than not, navies don't (and that is not what the OP is asking).
And politically, it's dicey to use too much of a show of force, like a squadron of destroyers (or more). One is warning enough (per my scenario), but you don't want to send it in with a water gun, which is why it should be able to defend itself (plausibly) against a spectrum of threats.
Yes, in an ideal work you more often than not don't send just one ship in. But there are circumstances when you need to. And the use of force sometimes is too much, you might just want to engage in a little bit of gunboat diplomacy.
Do you really think a nation is going to send one ship against an adversary who have more than twenty ships, much less five ships and an air force to boot? That won't happen...
I can't imagine any nation sending one ship on a long deployment abroad except to show the flag peacefully or join other nations for a peacekeeping/humanitarian mission. One ship won't provide much opposition against a naval force of more ships and submarines...
So you want to use a single surface warship to intimidate a nation with air, sea, and sub-surface assets all available to it, but you don't want to use multiple warships because that would be too threatening? I'm no Navy man, but that logic doesn't work for me. Your mileage might vary but your single asset will be at a tremendous disadvantage if it is faced with air, sea, and sub-surface threats. There's no getting around that. Does that limit its capacity to shape the policies and actions of nation x? In my mind, it's very likely. I suppose you're demonstrating political will with such an action but if the vessel cannot pose a military threat, how it's going to engage in gunboat diplomacy is a mystery to me.
I don't dispute that naval vessels can be used in a show of strength, and not necessarily in large numbers - the problem I have with the scenario comes when likely opposition as multiple air, surface, and sub-surface threats. That to me sounds too significant a threat for a single vessel to do much intimidating at all.
I don't have the answers, but that's just what I think. If you disagree, no worries. I was trying to reinforce the point made by several posters in here that concentrating on a single platform doesn't fully explain that platform's capabilities or the capabilities of the navy of which the platform is a part. Systems not platforms, etc etc.
For a clue notice how one battle cruiser failed to win a naval battle against three cruisers, one heavy and two light cruisers during WWII... Eleven inch vs eight and six inch main guns... Read about the Battle of the River Platt... And this was without submarines and combat aircraft involved...
The British Royal Navy used to have for a long principle (might be less in effect today) that you should send in one ship into trouble spots, with the implicit threat that if anything were to happen to that one ship, then the entire Royal Navy would be there soon to visit.
Again, I'm going by the original parameters of the OP. Did you read it at all? And realistically, what can the entire DPRK navy do, to say, one Aegis cruiser? Or the Iranian navy? China's a bit different, if for sheer numbers and land-based anti-shipping missiles.
Of course I understand the point that the other posters are making, but instead of repeating everyone else it might be possible to add something to the discussion. In almost 90% of situations, it's better to have a flotilla or fleet at your disposal to hot spots. I was just trying to come up with a plausible scenario per the OP's request that wasn't to the point of being "What's the BEST SHIP EVA." There are times when only a show of force is really necessary, in which case it might be best to just have one ship.
In fact, there's a Wall Street Journal article right here talking about the pressures the US Navy faces in bringing its full power projection abilities to bear in the Western Pacific and how ships might have to operate more independently.:
Search Michael Austin: Asia's Troubled Waters (Apparently, I can't link yet. D'oh)
Last edited:
The western Pacific is much closer to American naval bases than the Indian Ocean. That reporter and news article is full of bull... US task forces sail those seas all the time. A carrier battle group is based in Japan... One cannot say the same with operations in the Indian Ocean...
While it may take a few weeks for more carrier battle groups to arrive, the idea we should have task forces everywhere at any moment is bull... Simply put, the earth is too large to do so...
Plus I am sure the US keeps one surveillance ship in WestPac most likey all the time, if not a submarine nearby... The ship is most likely already there... Marines are in Okinawa and we still have Army units in South Korea. We take out defense of Guam seriously... after all its American territory... So much so the USCG keeps at least one cutter at Guam...
Not to mention our USAF has a base in Guam which our bombers use every day...
While it may take a few weeks for more carrier battle groups to arrive, the idea we should have task forces everywhere at any moment is bull... Simply put, the earth is too large to do so...
Plus I am sure the US keeps one surveillance ship in WestPac most likey all the time, if not a submarine nearby... The ship is most likely already there... Marines are in Okinawa and we still have Army units in South Korea. We take out defense of Guam seriously... after all its American territory... So much so the USCG keeps at least one cutter at Guam...
Not to mention our USAF has a base in Guam which our bombers use every day...
Last edited:
SeaToby, all the more reason why it might be relevant in the future to have single ships that can act independently all over the world before the big guns arrive. With the cost/ship slowly increasing and gradual dwindling of the size of the US Navy, singular independent platforms in the future will be all the more important to do things that CVBGs used to do.
Aren't we reducing our CVBGs from 11 to 10, anyway?
Hadn't thought of it like that, fair point.
I did indeed read the original post - and you'll see I responded earlier in the thread. However my later posts were responding to you, not to the OP. And again I'd make the point that you're not just talking about naval threats, but also air threats - and that with sub-surface threats as a stated opposition I think a single AEGIS cruiser would be quite vulnerable. As an example of DPRK naval capabilities, look at the trouble brewing off the coast of Korea at the moment, with the recent sinking of a South Korean vessel and the possible implication that a North Korean torpedo was the cause. I realise it's an assumption on my behalf as I do not know the full details of the event, but I think submarine threats should be accorded great respect, particularly when someone demonstrates they're not afraid of using them. Anyway it's just an example of what the DPRK navy can do (or what they maybe did, depending on what you think of the incident).
I do think though that perhaps I missed the intent of your post in the sense that I had assumed a more aggressive stance for the vessel than you're indicating with your Royal Navy example above, apologies for that.
Appreciated.
I will have a look for that article, thanks.
Really folks, if we dispersed all of our ships from carrier battle groups there won't be any escorts for the carriers...
What bothers me the most is how many supply ships will we need to feed our sailors on the ships dispersed throughout the world, much less refuel the ships...
Am I the only one who thinks of logistics, or do you think the navy will grow their food aboard the ships?
We only have ninety or so cruisers and destroyers. With a one for three deployment rotation policy, how will thirty ships cover over 100 or more nations? To provide that many lone ships deployed individually abroad to do the job you wish we'll have to deploy all of our ships without a rotation policy. How many sailors would reenlist being at sea all of the time without any shore leave?
How many replenishment ships does the US Navy have? HInt, we don't have thirty replenishment ships, which using the one for three rotation policy will leave us with less than ten forwardly deployed...
The supply ships were built and designed to replenish task forces, not individual ships... Simply put, even if we wanted to disperse the fleet, which we don't, we couldn't supply the ships... I guess we'll let the sailors starve....
What good is any lone ship deployed abroad which is out of fuel?
Will our sailors get any sleep? As it is they are working over 8 hours per day, putting in more than 16 hours a day. The Navy likes to operate at least in pairs, so that the enemy won't attack at night while we are sleeping. Fighting a war involves more than 8 hours coverage...
Last edited:
Anyone who has played the board game of RISK understands massing your forces will win the game over leaving one army in each country... And RISK doesn't involve logistics at all...
The firstest with the mostest.... Simple, elementary military doctrine... Soldiers don't fight well when they're hungry...
The firstest with the mostest.... Simple, elementary military doctrine... Soldiers don't fight well when they're hungry...
Last edited:
This is true about the logistics, but then again allied bases are pretty close to north Korean waters and Iranian waters. Again, I'm not taking this deployments to be static indefinite things, but every so often nations need a "reminder."
Yes, our sailors definitely get sleep. No ship shut down for the night, and any US ship worth its weight will have multiple crews on board. In fact, IIRC, US ships in particular have more crew on board than most other modern navies because they like the extra men for damage control and rested sailors for actual emergencies. This policy even extends to submarines, where we run 3 shifts on a sub, while most other nations due to size considerations only run 2.
We're going to be down to 10 CVBGs soon. With 6 usually at the ready and an additional 2 that can be deployed within 90 days, the number of places we can project power to are only so limited.
Per the OP's request, we're talking about what would probably be the most capable ship to send into such a region, and I've come up with a couple of scenarios where it might happen. I agree in that we should usually send at least a flotilla of ships, but reality will often cut in the way of things we want to do and things we have to do.
As it is, isn't this the entire thinking behind the LCS class of ships anyway? Small, cheap, and fast so we could put one in harm's way when the really big guns aren't needed. I'll make a bet that these ships (more often than not) will be deployed singularly as opposed to small flotillas or even pairs.
FluffyThoughts
Member
OK, my best-isted warship:
A 12,000 tonne liners crewed by the finest Scandinavian, Hispanic and sub-Saharan (big-breasted, broad-ass) beauties. :coffee
What aggressor could not fall against such assets....
Can we now have a serious thread....
A 12,000 tonne liners crewed by the finest Scandinavian, Hispanic and sub-Saharan (big-breasted, broad-ass) beauties. :coffee
What aggressor could not fall against such assets....
Can we now have a serious thread....
As someone suggested before Burke flight II OR III.
If you want to protect a country and cant afford alot of carriers and such just some frigates for ASW. But the main ship a good mix of land, sea, and airdefense attack capabilities.
Having a single ship all by itself is silly. As was mentioned logistics would be a big problem.
Human beings all have a problem mentaly incommon. Our brains lie to us. So where you might say well if we sink that 3 billion dollars super ship and its 700 crewmen then the americans will rain down a world of **** on us. A terrorist or aggressor might say sink this guy teach them a lesson.
As someone mentioned LCS is intended to do the patrolling.
Everyone knows Americas power. Might not fully comprehend it or places like iran and buddies would crawl into small deep holes and be very quiet but....
Now if america was able to act like great britain in the 1800's it would be different. But we have to be NICE now.
If you want to protect a country and cant afford alot of carriers and such just some frigates for ASW. But the main ship a good mix of land, sea, and airdefense attack capabilities.
Having a single ship all by itself is silly. As was mentioned logistics would be a big problem.
Human beings all have a problem mentaly incommon. Our brains lie to us. So where you might say well if we sink that 3 billion dollars super ship and its 700 crewmen then the americans will rain down a world of **** on us. A terrorist or aggressor might say sink this guy teach them a lesson.
As someone mentioned LCS is intended to do the patrolling.
Everyone knows Americas power. Might not fully comprehend it or places like iran and buddies would crawl into small deep holes and be very quiet but....
Now if america was able to act like great britain in the 1800's it would be different. But we have to be NICE now.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #36
Reminds me of the movie "The Sum of All Fears" when a lone American aircraft carrier was attacked and almost sank by Russian jets.
---
Let me repost... How about the modern Kirov-class warship of the Russian Navy?
Well besides the fact it has alot of maintainence problems and such. Its really just a big tico.
Dont get me wrong its a excellent ship killer in a 1 on 1 engagment but against a pack of our Burkes or another group? no.
Surely you're not comparing the game of Risk with United States foreign and military policy. While there are a number of things wrong with the analogy (no way that North America should only give you five extra troops), to what we're directly talking about:
1. In the game of Risk, one is trying to take over the world. A singular goal. that is achievable in the context of the game. Do you really think we only have one goal (ignoring the fact that its conquering the world?). United States Foreign Policy has a multitude of goals, all over the world. Even considering Iraq and Afghanistan aside, we have to think about North Korea, China/Taiwan, Israel, routine patrols in the pacific and Northern Atlantic, all the while achieving the flexibility of being able to approach a hot spot in the world within days, if not hours. You can not do that when you have your navy in one big clump. Or even 2 big clump. Hell, 5 big clumps. You need to assess the right amount of force for the severity of the situation.
2. There's no need to really mass forces, anyway! What navy can realistically challenge the US Navy? Even a flotilla (or dare I say, singular) of US Navy destroyers?
3. Again, you bring up logistics. Again, I bring up the fact that these ships are going to be relatively close to allied bases (Diego Garcia, Korea, Japan, Bahrain) but these ships can (and do!) go on extended tours for months at a time. Which, by the time a certain nation-state gets "the hint" the US Navy won't have any need to stay there... or it could loiter close by, again.
Yes. This reinforces my point. There is a role (and a large one at that!) for ships to be on their own. Patrols, even going into hot spots. But even on doldrum patrols they don't send them in with a water gun; they have a sensor of suites and multitude of weapons so that they may be able to reasonably deal with a variety of threats.
Actually, kind of surprised nobody brought up the idea of a simple oceanic-patrol as a scenario that might be relevant to what the OP was asking. Similar to what we do with SSBNs, but without the nuclear missiles.
Eh... I'm not so excited about the sensor suite package of the Kirov Class. God knows its fearsome and armed to the teeth, but the Russian navy has been kind of lapped by Western Europe and the United States in radar and sonar technologies. I'd even like to say on an open sea, good money is on one Aegis-destroyer (from any country). Of course, there's a variety of other conditions that have to be taken into account.
Replies to some of your questions;
1. The game of Risk does reveal an old military doctine between equal forces, get there the firstest with the mostest.
2. A single US destroyer won't last long in any battle with an opposing force of destroyers, frigates, submarines, and fighter jets. If you think otherwise, you are overconfident.
3. A large carrier will run out of food within a week. A destroyer or frigates may not starve as quickly, but they will be out of fresh milk in less than two weeks if not one week. Simply put, fresh perishables don't last long even when they are refrigerated. Don't confuse food storage facilites of a high endurance cutter with a destroyer or frigate.
4. While its true ships can resupply from allied nations ports nearby, not everyone will do so in a crisis situation. But ammunition and spares must come from our own supply ships in much of the third world.
While our high endurance cutter can patrol worldwide, they are no match to another nation's frigate. Again, one won't last long against a task force of another nation... Keep in mind there are only 12 high endurance cutters in the Coast Guard fleet. And then only a third to a half of them are deployed at any given time. Six of them barely leave one of them to cover the six continents, much less over a hundred nations...
Again, I repeat, we can't be everywhere at the same time. We don't have the logistics train to do so. Our navy is based upon six supply convoys, or replenishment groups.
1. The game of Risk does reveal an old military doctine between equal forces, get there the firstest with the mostest.
2. A single US destroyer won't last long in any battle with an opposing force of destroyers, frigates, submarines, and fighter jets. If you think otherwise, you are overconfident.
3. A large carrier will run out of food within a week. A destroyer or frigates may not starve as quickly, but they will be out of fresh milk in less than two weeks if not one week. Simply put, fresh perishables don't last long even when they are refrigerated. Don't confuse food storage facilites of a high endurance cutter with a destroyer or frigate.
4. While its true ships can resupply from allied nations ports nearby, not everyone will do so in a crisis situation. But ammunition and spares must come from our own supply ships in much of the third world.
While our high endurance cutter can patrol worldwide, they are no match to another nation's frigate. Again, one won't last long against a task force of another nation... Keep in mind there are only 12 high endurance cutters in the Coast Guard fleet. And then only a third to a half of them are deployed at any given time. Six of them barely leave one of them to cover the six continents, much less over a hundred nations...
Again, I repeat, we can't be everywhere at the same time. We don't have the logistics train to do so. Our navy is based upon six supply convoys, or replenishment groups.
1. Yes, get there first with the most. And I again point out the US has many competing interest, and many navies would have trouble even with a small flotilla or US Navy combat ships. Which is why it's ok to spread them out in different locations in the world.
2. Note how I never said battle. More often than not, showing up precludes the battle in the first place, very much so with practically any combat ship in the US Navy. Don't try to conflate the two, that it not what I intend to convey. But just because they show up doesn't mean we don't send it in armed to prepare for what might happen.
3. Are you purposely trying to obfuscate things? I'm pretty sure most sailors could not care less about milk, but rather if they have the provisions to be at sea for extended period of times. And that time for destroyers like Arleigh Burke is 2-3 weeks for comfortable living (meaning fresh fruits, vegetables). A time after that it can continue to on if it chooses, but under more stringent conditions. You have never seen me argue for an indefinite stay of any ship... god forbid one ship go to port while another relieve it of its duty. And 2-3 weeks in terms of a political or military crisis in most cases can be considered a lifetime. Usually, crises get resolved before then, or more ships/troops are sent in as the situation escalates.
4. If you really think said ship is going to go into a situation where it will be in a situation to use ALL its armaments (which, for an Arleigh Burke is 90 missiles in VLS cells, one 5-inch cannon with thousands of rounds, and six torpedoes) you clearly do no understand the type of situation I am describing.