US Navy News and updates

[John Fedup]

I call that article horse manure.
Ships fighting in rough weather have always done it tough and when you compare the escorts of the Battle of the Atlantic to modern ships the difference is stark, I know which ship I want to be posted to.
When the weather deteriorated beyond Force 5 all escorts have difficulty functioning but then so to does the enemy’s problems increase.
Are they suggesting that the Flower and Hunt Class ships of the RN and the Fletchers and Gearings of the USN were useless in the Atlantic becaor even more recently the T12’s and the Ruderows, Dealys and Brookes were better than modern escorts at fighting in rough seas?

This seems to me to be a backhand swipe at LCS even though these ships would be unlikely to serve in the extreme weather in northern or southern climes.

I think the main point was the USN hasn’t been spending a lot of time lately in ugly seas. As for small versus big, big is usually more comfortable. LCS deserves a backhand swipe IMO. Frigates and destroyers have been gaining weight for years now, although more for capability than sea comfort.

 

[ASSAIL]

I think the main point was the USN hasn’t been spending a lot of time lately in ugly seas. As for small versus big, big is usually more comfortable. LCS deserves a backhand swipe IMO. Frigates and destroyers have been gaining weight for years now, although more for capability than sea comfort.

Ugly seas are not confined to the winter in the N Atlantic. I’ve been in frigates badly damaged in a number of places, the Med, Bay of Biscay, SCS, Tasman and the Great Australian Bight to name some.
In very rough seas larger ships tend to suffer more internal damage because their crews are far less proficient at lashing down and securing for rough weather and when heavy gear breaks loose it causes havoc.
Small patrol boats get thrown around like corks in a washing machine but generally their crews are so used to it that their preparation is thorough.

 

[ngatimozart]

Ugly seas are not confined to the winter in the N Atlantic. I’ve been in frigates badly damaged in a number of places, the Med, Bay of Biscay, SCS, Tasman and the Great Australian Bight to name some.
In very rough seas larger ships tend to suffer more internal damage because their crews are far less proficient at lashing down and securing for rough weather and when heavy gear breaks loose it causes havoc.
Small patrol boats get thrown around like corks in a washing machine but generally their crews are so used to it that their preparation is thorough.

Agree, I think it comes down to training and basic seamanship in a big part. I think to that the USN has in part forgotten the "old skills" of seamanship and this has been shown with the recent incidents in the 7th Fleet. There was also a SSN grounding 4 years ago when entering port on the eastern US coast with a green crew doing training evolutions and the crews seamanship wasn't skilled enough for the evolution demanded by higher authority, who over ruled the CO. So CO & XO got fired, NAV and other officers got bad FITREPS and the Sqn CO & Commodore had managed to cover their asses until recently. The USN isn't the only navy that has this problem.

 

[ngatimozart]

The FFG(X) contract could be awarded soon, rather than later this year as originally planned The US Navy’s FFG(X) could be awarded sooner than expected. Will be interesting to see who wins the contract and how long its dragged through the courts by the losers for.

 

[ngatimozart]

The FFG(X) contract could be awarded soon, rather than later this year as originally planned The US Navy’s FFG(X) could be awarded sooner than expected. Will be interesting to see who wins the contract and how long its dragged through the courts by the losers for.

And the pork barrelling starts.

Legislators press Trump to push frigate deal to Marinette

Each ship is expected to cost about $900 million.

www.navytimes.com

 

[Todjaeger]

And the pork barrelling starts.

Legislators press Trump to push frigate deal to Marinette

Each ship is expected to cost about $900 million.

www.navytimes.com

Umm... No, it did not start. It has been going on for a long, long time...

 

[Ananda]

Navy may not buy any more Ford-class aircraft carriers: Navy secretary

"I don't know if we're going to buy any more of that type," he said, adding that the Navy is "certainly thinking about possible other classes."

www.businessinsider.com

This is interesting, the potential that USN will stop procured Ford class to only Four CVN. Also the idea they will look to other class.

There has been some talk for USN to come back for smaller design like QE2 size, if not mistaken. If that happen then they will perhaps open the idea of Attack Carriers like the time of Essex class.
Or it's simply the cost of Ford is just getting too much.

 

[ngatimozart]

Navy may not buy any more Ford-class aircraft carriers: Navy secretary

"I don't know if we're going to buy any more of that type," he said, adding that the Navy is "certainly thinking about possible other classes."

www.businessinsider.com

This is interesting, the potential that USN will stop procured Ford class to only Four CVN. Also the idea they will look to other class.

There has been some talk for USN to come back for smaller design like QE2 size, if not mistaken. If that happen then they will perhaps open the idea of Attack Carriers like the time of Essex class.
Or it's simply the cost of Ford is just getting too much.

It's interesting. The way I have been reading it is that cost is part of it, but also I think that they possibly may be looking at the WW2 concept of CVE and combining that with the USMC Lightning carrier concept. So possibly a CV with an air wing of say 36 - 48 aircraft in toto, or even 24 -36 aircraft in toto, as part of a surface strike group. How many of those could you get for the price of one Ford class CVN? Especially if the CV is conventionally powered, not nuclear powered, and uses MOTS & COTS components & technologies for the first tranche. No new technologies at all - just get the CVs in the water and operational. Cross deck sensors etc., from the latest Flight III DDG 51 Arleigh Burke class; EMALS etc., from the Ford CVN.

They will definitely be rethinking their CV CONOPS, but how this translates into a FCVX class or classes remains to be seen.

 

[ASSAIL]

It's interesting. The way I have been reading it is that cost is part of it, but also I think that they possibly may be looking at the WW2 concept of CVE and combining that with the USMC Lightning carrier concept. So possibly a CV with an air wing of say 36 - 48 aircraft in toto, or even 24 -36 aircraft in toto, as part of a surface strike group. How many of those could you get for the price of one Ford class CVN? Especially if the CV is conventionally powered, not nuclear powered, and uses MOTS & COTS components & technologies for the first tranche. No new technologies at all - just get the CVs in the water and operational. Cross deck sensors etc., from the latest Flight III DDG 51 Arleigh Burke class; EMALS etc., from the Ford CVN.

They will definitely be rethinking their CV CONOPS, but how this translates into a FCVX class or classes remains to be seen.

Cost always is a consideration but I don’t think it’s the driving sentiment here.
The rapid development of powerful stand off weapons and the growth of modern submarines deploying those weapons, particularly in the PLA-N but also Russia demands a rethink of CV CONOPS as you mention.
For the last 70 Years USN carriers have been employed supporting land ops, close to land and with little regard for Red forces. For some of this time the Soviets posed a threat but the weapons of the time were far more inaccurate cf those found today and so this threat was more easily countered.
All is changing and it may be that CVNs become too big to lose and are relegated to Blue water enforcing area denial. From this far away their aircraft become less useful to friendly ground forces and huge numbers of aircraft would seem superfluous.
A new cheaper smaller version could be employed closer to the land campaigns where the risks are higher but the effect of their loss is less devastating.
I see a parallel with the battleship era, the end of which few foresaw, but the speed of their subsequent demise was breathtaking.
SECNAV Esper is not Navy but sometimes it takes an outsider to view the situation without the inherent baggage carried by those who know no other way.

 

[Ananda]

new cheaper smaller version could be employed closer to the land campaigns where the risks are higher but the effect of their loss is less devastating.

Isn't that what suppose the LHD with Marines Harrier/F-35 B do ? CVN supposed to provide Area Air Superiority coverage, while LHD with Marines VTOL provide local coverage in landing operation.

However if CVN now being retract bit farther, isn't LHD with Marines VTOL will be enough ?
The way I see it the cost factor matter in here more. If a CVN need 5000+ Manning (or 4000+ with increase automation in Ford if not mistaken), then Two QE2 sized CV with conventional power and 2000 Manning and 40-50 aircraft "perhaps" can be build less then Ford cost but both of them still provide same capabilities of one CVN super carrier and still manageable to be operated near land.

If they can work it out like that, then perhaps it will be attractive for USN, while they don't have to change much on their Carrier CONOPS.
So if they still aiming for 10 Ford CVN operation, with 4 Ford CVN and say 10-12 CV (which can be procured two in the cost of one Ford CVN) will perhaps provide what USN aiming to maintain, compared to all 10 Ford CVN with some cost to save.

I don't know, just seems the way of thinking of smaller conventional CV back to their future consideration.

 

[ASSAIL]

Isn't that what suppose the LHD with Marines Harrier/F-35 B do ? CVN supposed to provide Area Air Superiority coverage, while LHD with Marines VTOL provide local coverage in landing operation.

However if CVN now being retract bit farther, isn't LHD with Marines VTOL will be enough ?
The way I see it the cost factor matter in here more. If a CVN need 5000+ Manning (or 4000+ with increase automation in Ford if not mistaken), then Two QE2 sized CV with conventional power and 2000 Manning and 40-50 aircraft "perhaps" can be build less then Ford cost but both of them still provide same capabilities of one CVN super carrier and still manageable to be operated near land.

If they can work it out like that, then perhaps it will be attractive for USN, while they don't have to change much on their Carrier CONOPS.
So if they still aiming for 10 Ford CVN operation, with 4 Ford CVN and say 10-12 CV (which can be procured two in the cost of one Ford CVN) will perhaps provide what USN aiming to maintain, compared to all 10 Ford CVN with some cost to save.

I don't know, just seems the way of thinking of smaller conventional CV back to their future consideration.

You might be right but consider this;
Since the demise of the IJN the USN has never before had to counter a peer Navy such as the PLA-N will be by mid century and certainly during the life of the Fords,
The risk to the platform and its thousands of lives has to be foremost in the minds of the operational planners,
If you accept that a casualty is likely better it make a lesser impact on the ORBAT,
and yes the cost in both $ and manpower is important but if you can get 3 x Forrestal size (65,000 tons) carriers for the price of a single Ford it may be beneficial.

Finally, the America Class LHAs and the LHDs are useful with their 20 F35s but they can’t sustain the sortie rate long term and they are more an option for AD and CAS while acting as amphibious support.
I see a new class active either within or adjacent to the SCS and close to the second island chain type ops whereas I see the Fords in mid ocean.

 

[John Fedup]

So after all the engineering and expense of developing the Ford class, somebody has decided to pull a Zumwalt maneuver and only build 4 ships. Well that will certainly give the folks at POGO the ability to harp on how expensive Fords are. IMO, the decision may be correct but certainly the concerns about carrier vulnerability isn't a new thing so why now? The really big question is how viable are surface ships, period, in this age of exotic missiles and sophisticated subs?

I don't think modernized Forrestal or QE with CATOBAR alternatives will be all that cost effective when crewing costs and additional support tankers are factored in. The loss of these will be just as catastrophic as losing a Ford from a crew perspective. With the inevitable mission creep, a 60,000 to 70,000 ton CV is probably 50-60% the cost of a Ford. If energy directed anti-missile defence capability becomes a reality then the huge power provided by Ford's nuclear reactors looks very attractive. This announcement may just be a trial balloon to gauge congressional reaction. I guess this is one way for DoD to fund an extra 100 B-21 raiders for the USAF.

 

[ngatimozart]

The USNI have this to say: Navy Kicks Off Study of Next-Generation Carriers, Naval Aviation - USNI News, but it doesn't offer a lot to the conversation. At the same time would something the size of QE class CV or the Forrestal class CV be considered a light carrier? The Forrestal class still had a crew of 4,000+ and displaced about 60,000 tons. Personally I would think that something in the region of 30 - 40,000 tonnes would be a light carrier in USN parlance.

You might be right but consider this;
Since the demise of the IJN the USN has never before had to counter a peer Navy such as the PLA-N will be by mid century and certainly during the life of the Fords,

No the USN hasn't faced a peer navy in combat since the IJN and the PLA-N will not be infected by the same arrogance that the IJN (& IJA) had. However the PLA-N won't have the same freedom of command that the IJN had, because its command structures and strictures are very rigid, and nothing is deviated from without permission from higher command. That in itself is a weakness - no independent thought.

The risk to the platform and its thousands of lives has to be foremost in the minds of the operational planners,
If you accept that a casualty is likely better it make a lesser impact on the ORBAT,
and yes the cost in both $ and manpower is important but if you can get 3 x Forrestal size (65,000 tons) carriers for the price of a single Ford it may be beneficial.

Finally, the America Class LHAs and the LHDs are useful with their 20 F35s but they can’t sustain the sortie rate long term and they are more an option for AD and CAS while acting as amphibious support.
I see a new class active either within or adjacent to the SCS and close to the second island chain type ops whereas I see the Fords in mid ocean.

Operating F-35Bs off America class amphib assault ships is more than useful. It's about distributed lethality as well, creating problems for an enemy. Instead of having to only target 10 or 11 CVNs, now they have to find and target all of the USN flat tops because any or all of them could be harbouring F-35s. Not only that, the USMC F-35Bs can jump from flat top to temp shore base etc., and back to flat top.

I agree that the large CVNs will be restricted to mid ocean, but don't forget that the PLA-Rocket Forces have the DF-21D 'Ship Killer' MRBM that can reach quite a way into the deep blue. If as the article: Is This China's DF-21D Air Launched Anti-Ship Ballistic Missile Toting Bomber?, suggests it can now be air launched, and that is another thorny issue for the defence to consider.

So after all the engineering and expense of developing the Ford class, somebody has decided to pull a Zumwalt maneuver and only build 4 ships. Well that will certainly give the folks at POGO the ability to harp on how expensive Fords are. IMO, the decision may be correct but certainly the concerns about carrier vulnerability isn't a new thing so why now? The really big question is how viable are surface ships, period, in this age of exotic missiles and sophisticated subs?

Interestingly only four Forrestal class CV were built. I think that carrier vulnerability specifically and surface ship vulnerability in general in the modern age is a discussion that needs to be had. Are carriers now at the stage in their life cycle that battleships were in 1941? Obsolete, but no one willing to acknowledge or admit it, especially carrier aficionados. I don't know myself, but given the rise, proliferation, and increasing capabilities of AShM, I would think that carriers are becoming increasing vulnerable to the AShM threat.

I don't think modernized Forrestal or QE with CATOBAR alternatives will be all that cost effective when crewing costs and additional support tankers are factored in. The loss of these will be just as catastrophic as losing a Ford from a crew perspective. With the inevitable mission creep, a 60,000 to 70,000 ton CV is probably 50-60% the cost of a Ford. If energy directed anti-missile defence capability becomes a reality then the huge power provided by Ford's nuclear reactors looks very attractive. This announcement may just be a trial balloon to gauge congressional reaction. I guess this is one way for DoD to fund an extra 100 B-21 raiders for the USAF.

The USN would have to look at crewing in order to cut costs. They would have to automate where they can, however they intensively crew their ships compared to other navies. Whether or not they would change that is open to debate, but one argument would be, why change what has worked for decades. They do have an emphasis on damage control though.

 

[Ananda]

I don't have the link, but I do remember read from Forbes or Business Review on USN spokesperson talk sometime ago on potential two alternative carrier models:
1. Conventional power QE2 size (this similar to Forestall) of 60,000+
2. Smaller nuclear power on CDG size of 40,000+

#2 being reviewed due to still Nuclear power (as Navy still heavily tilted to CVN), but on that size can used modified Nuclear Reactors from Submarine (SSN/SSBN) thus can be more compact and more avordable (as being procured leveraging Submarine program).

Cost will in the end determine what alternative that they're going to choose in my opinion. Off course other strategic issue will matter. However if two CDG size CVN can provide similar capabilities than one Ford class CVN with some cost saving, then perhaps it can be attractive to USN.
If one Ford as the article stated cost USD 13 Bio, and if they can build two smaller CV (whether conventional CV of QE2 size or CVN of CDG size) at 'say' USD 11 bio, then I still can see this is going to be attractive to USN and Industry and will satisfied the senators and congressman that want to keep the job in defense Industry.

As for proliferation of more advance SSM (from land, surface ships, submarine or airborne) that can create problem for any CBG, it can be also said there are also improvement on anti Missiles Defence.
Remember Tom Clancy Red Storm Rising that used scenario's that being put by NATO in cold war. The idea of CBG being swarm by SSM from Submarine or Bombers already calculate from the 80's and 90's.
So does NATO answer of more Air Cover and anti submarine operation from Surface, Air or SSN. Thus related to China or Russia more accurate SSM (whether sea skimming or ballistic or hypersonic) will be then be answered by more advance anti Missiles Defence.

My point is that even since cold war era, the threat for CBG on peer to peer adversaries situations, already significant. Thus the carrier CONOPS perhaps will not change much. If any changes on the size of carrier then more reflects on the cost matter.

 

[Redlands18]

https://www.naval-encyclopedia.com/coldwar/US/forestall-class-1954

Guys i think we are underselling the size of the Forrestal class Carriers here, they were 316m and close to 80,000t full load, a lot closer to the Nimitz(333m) than to the QE class in size at 284m.

edit sorry link doesn’t take you to the exact page but if you type in Forrestal class on the page it goes to it works.

 

[Boagrius]

My point is that even since cold war era, the threat for CBG on peer to peer adversaries situations, already significant. Thus the carrier CONOPS perhaps will not change much. If any changes on the size of carrier then more reflects on the cost matter.

True, although even back then the life expectancy of USN CVNs would not have been terribly long had the Cold War turned hot (anyone feel free to correct me if I'm wrong here). Admittedly the life expectancy of many things would have been rather brief in that scenario... save for some submarines and cockroaches perhaps?

The issue I can see is here is that the USN is going to be faced with threats that either didn't exist during the Cold War or have changed significantly since then. For example, things like DF21 could allow the PRC to hold USN vessels at risk at extreme range and from launchers located safely on the Chinese mainland. For the time being I suspect completing the kill chain for a weapon like that would be prohibitively difficult (the targeting problem springs to mind), but that could change in the coming decades(?).

 

[ASSAIL]

https://www.naval-encyclopedia.com/coldwar/US/forestall-class-1954

Guys i think we are underselling the size of the Forrestal class Carriers here, they were 316m and close to 80,000t full load, a lot closer to the Nimitz(333m) than to the QE class in size at 284m.

edit sorry link doesn’t take you to the exact page but if you type in Forrestal class on the page it goes to it works.

Janes American Fighting Ships of the 20th Century quotes Forrestal, the smallest of the class at 990ft - 75,200 tons full load through to JFK, the largest at 83,000 full load, 319mtrs.
The 4 x Forrestals, +Ranger, Saratoga and Independence were followed by the 4 x “Improved Forrestals, Kittyhawk, Constellation America and JFK whose Island structure was slightly smaller and set further aft.

 

[ngatimozart]

https://www.naval-encyclopedia.com/coldwar/US/forestall-class-1954

Guys i think we are underselling the size of the Forrestal class Carriers here, they were 316m and close to 80,000t full load, a lot closer to the Nimitz(333m) than to the QE class in size at 284m.

edit sorry link doesn’t take you to the exact page but if you type in Forrestal class on the page it goes to it works.

Hmm, don't think English is the first language of the author and / or the translator. To many basic language mistakes in it so I wonder what else is wrong with the site. For example, how accurate is the information given in the entries?

I don't have the link, but I do remember read from Forbes or Business Review on USN spokesperson talk sometime ago on potential two alternative carrier models:
1. Conventional power QE2 size (this similar to Forestall) of 60,000+
2. Smaller nuclear power on CDG size of 40,000+

#2 being reviewed due to still Nuclear power (as Navy still heavily tilted to CVN), but on that size can used modified Nuclear Reactors from Submarine (SSN/SSBN) thus can be more compact and more avordable (as being procured leveraging Submarine program).

I read the same article and buggered if I can find it again. So I am pleased to see someone else had read it and that I wasn't going senile in my old age ... yet .

Cost will in the end determine what alternative that they're going to choose in my opinion. Off course other strategic issue will matter. However if two CDG size CVN can provide similar capabilities than one Ford class CVN with some cost saving, then perhaps it can be attractive to USN.
If one Ford as the article stated cost USD 13 Bio, and if they can build two smaller CV (whether conventional CV of QE2 size or CVN of CDG size) at 'say' USD 11 bio, then I still can see this is going to be attractive to USN and Industry and will satisfied the senators and congressman that want to keep the job in defense Industry.

My own personal view is that a CV / CVN of QE2 or Forrestal size may be somewhat to large and as I said earlier in the thread, something around the 30 - 40,000 tonne displacement size would more appropriate as a light carrier. It's about half the size of the current USN CVN and if they can operate in the region of say 36 - 42 aircraft off it, they'd have a pretty good capability on their hands.

As for proliferation of more advance SSM (from land, surface ships, submarine or airborne) that can create problem for any CBG, it can be also said there are also improvement on anti Missiles Defence.
Remember Tom Clancy Red Storm Rising that used scenario's that being put by NATO in cold war. The idea of CBG being swarm by SSM from Submarine or Bombers already calculate from the 80's and 90's.
So does NATO answer of more Air Cover and anti submarine operation from Surface, Air or SSN. Thus related to China or Russia more accurate SSM (whether sea skimming or ballistic or hypersonic) will be then be answered by more advance anti Missiles Defence.

I've read Red Storm Rising a few times and IMHO was written during Tom Clancy's best time as an author, before he got into the realm of fantasy-land. Where he had the Atlantic convoys being swamped with AShMs launched from Soviet subs and bombers was a reasonable assumption, as was the Soviet invasion of Iceland using paratroopers and hovercraft launched from ocean going barges. If you read Ghost Fleet by PW Singer & August Cole in conjunction with Red Storm Rising, then you have an interesting and plausible scenario for the Asia Pacific. On its own Ghost Fleet is a compelling read and I do recommend it as a must read.

My point is that even since cold war era, the threat for CBG on peer to peer adversaries situations, already significant. Thus the carrier CONOPS perhaps will not change much. If any changes on the size of carrier then more reflects on the cost matter.

I don't actually know. Yes cost will play a reasonably large role in any CV / CVN decision. However, if anything, future CV CONOPS will probably dictate that large CV / CVNs will remain far out to sea, at least 250 - 300 nautical miles from shore, if not significantly further, keeping them out of range of shore mounted AShM. Stand fast the DF-21D.

But one question nags at the back of my lonesome single cell brain - are we seeing the end of the age of the carrier?

 

[Boagrius]

I think it's plausible we're in a transitional period as far as the role of the carrier is concerned. I say transitional because while their survivability may be declining there isn't really anything that could take their place AFAIK.

 

[oldsig127]

My own personal view is that a CV / CVN of QE2 or Forrestal size may be somewhat to large and as I said earlier in the thread, something around the 30 - 40,000 tonne displacement size would more appropriate as a light carrier. It's about half the size of the current USN CVN and if they can operate in the region of say 36 - 42 aircraft off it, they'd have a pretty good capability on their hands.

It's probably worth noting that HMAS Canberra displaces 27000 tonnes. To usefully operate a carrier group of even 36 aircraft the "light carrier" would surely need to be at the upper limit of that 30k-40k tonne range.

oldsig