US Navy News and updates

[ASSAIL]

What they are actually talking is something the size of a Swedish corvette, bigger than a Goteborg but a little smaller than a Visby, but with a much smaller crew, i.e. operator maintainers rather than operators and maintainers. The weapons mentioned, other than the 105mm are pretty much minimal maintenance, if not maintenance free (Javelin and Spike being pretty much stored as rounds of ammunition) the HMGs and AGLs being standard light combatant fare.

Would rather something like that than junk like the Armidales the RAN uses. The seem expensive and over armed but picture the load out of a couple of modern naval helos, their sensor suits etc. and how much they cost and this concept starts looking more reasonable. At least no one suggested hydrfoils or hovercraft for the job.

The vessel types you use as an example are optimised for Baltic CONOPS, a totally different employment to the Australian Patrol environment.
I’m no fan of the ACPBs but out of context comparisons with the Swedish ships is not a useful exercise.
I can’t see such a ship being useful to the RAN.

 

[ngatimozart]

What they are actually talking is something the size of a Swedish corvette, bigger than a Goteborg but a little smaller than a Visby, but with a much smaller crew, i.e. operator maintainers rather than operators and maintainers. The weapons mentioned, other than the 105mm are pretty much minimal maintenance, if not maintenance free (Javelin and Spike being pretty much stored as rounds of ammunition) the HMGs and AGLs being standard light combatant fare.

Would rather something like that than junk like the Armidales the RAN uses. The seem expensive and over armed but picture the load out of a couple of modern naval helos, their sensor suits etc. and how much they cost and this concept starts looking more reasonable. At least no one suggested hydrfoils or hovercraft for the job.

Maybe, but I would think that something with a 100m hull would be better.

The vessel types you use as an example are optimised for Baltic CONOPS, a totally different employment to the Australian Patrol environment.
I’m no fan of the ACPBs but out of context comparisons with the Swedish ships is not a useful exercise.
I can’t see such a ship being useful to the RAN.

I tend to agree. However I do have a fondness for the VARD-7- OPVs and possibly something along the lines of say their 7-90 or 7-100 hulls could be feasible. With automation the crew size could be kept down and whilst they wouldn't hit 30 knots, 24 is still respectable. You could probably fit tactical length Mk-41 VLS as well, and definitely ExLS if you wanted some SAM capability.

 

[OPSSG]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1293342397204594690

For some strange reason, the US Navy is executing its more important programs well, instead of the usual doom and gloom. The F-35C’s induction into the fleet is moving along.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1293645115303571458

The Next Generation Jammer Mid-Band pod was mounted and flown on an EA-18G Growler aircraft at Patuxent River, Maryland, on 7 Aug 2020 and
will replace the ALQ-99 jamming pod.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1293593096773668869

The EA-18G Growler’s replacement jamming pods has been broken up into three types of pods covering three portions of the electromagnetic spectrum: mid, low and high. Raytheon was awarded the mid-band pod in 2016. Bids for the low-band pod are currently out with Northrop Grumman and L3 Technologies selected to conduct a demonstration of existing systems. The timeline and funding for a high-band post is unclear at this time.

 

[t68]

Just a small update on USS Bonhomme Richard,

I'm no naval architect but its looks like scrap to me, looks to big an ask from an untrained eye

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1292377435808440320

 

[ngatimozart]

'Tis nothing but a scratch. Nothing that a few roles of 100 mph tape and a coat of paint won't fix

I think a lot will depend upon the hull structural integrity itself. If major hull structures have been severely damaged then she could well be a write off. However if the structural integrity hasn't been compromised then it may be possible to repair the ship. However that will be up to the marine surveyors and BUSHIPS.

 

[Redlands18]

'Tis nothing but a scratch. Nothing that a few roles of 100 mph tape and a coat of paint won't fix

I think a lot will depend upon the hull structural integrity itself. If major hull structures have been severely damaged then she could well be a write off. However if the structural integrity hasn't been compromised then it may be possible to repair the ship. However that will be up to the marine surveyors and BUSHIPS.

One big factor is how much life can they get out of her, given the fact she is not a young ship at 22. Even if she is repairable, i doubt there would be any change out of $1B in the repair bill. Might be better off putting that money into a new America class LHD.

 

[Todjaeger]

'Tis nothing but a scratch. Nothing that a few roles of 100 mph tape and a coat of paint won't fix

I think a lot will depend upon the hull structural integrity itself. If major hull structures have been severely damaged then she could well be a write off. However if the structural integrity hasn't been compromised then it may be possible to repair the ship. However that will be up to the marine surveyors and BUSHIPS.

I would not be concerned just with the hull integrity itself. A consideration would also be on not just how much damage was done to shipboard electronics and wiring, but also what the cost would be to either test and certify it was good, or determine what pieces had to be replaced and then replace them. Looking at that Mk 15 Phalanx, I would be shocked if it was not considered completely borked. I would suspect that attempting to scrap it and then salvage components from the scrap would likely cost more than the 'new' cost for whatever components are deemed useable.

 

[ngatimozart]

The USN has formally started its replacement program for the F/A-18E/F & G. It has stood up an office for the Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) program within NAVAIR. The new capability is intended to be manned, long ranged, a clean sheet design and in service in the 2030s. However sooner would be better because the USN is using the F-18 airframe hours quicker than planned for, so they are looking at accelerating the program. It will be interesting to see what they come up with. As long as the USAF keep their noses out and don't try to muscle in on the program.

 

[John Fedup]

A smaller naval version of the Raider could keep big deck carriers relevant and at a safe distance.

 

[Boagrius]

The USN has formally started its replacement program for the F/A-18E/F & G. It has stood up an office for the Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) program within NAVAIR. The new capability is intended to be manned, long ranged, a clean sheet design and in service in the 2030s. However sooner would be better because the USN is using the F-18 airframe hours quicker than planned for, so they are looking at accelerating the program. It will be interesting to see what they come up with. As long as the USAF keep their noses out and don't try to muscle in on the program.

This seems to be consistent with a piece that CSBA came out with two years ago. Their proposed 2040 air wing (p110) would be composed of a mixture of F35, F/A-XX and long ranged UCAV. Note that the conclusion appears to be that big-deck carriers ought to stay for the foreseeable future due mainly to their unique sortie generation capacity, mobility, and defensibility. My personal POV is that this is sensible given that I don't see how a fleet of more numerous, smaller carriers would be significantly more survivable than the currently projected one. From the horse's mouth:

Note also that, especially where the Pacific is concerned, the ~1000nm mark seems to be where they envision future CSG's operating. This would keep them outside the worst of the A2/AD bubble, while still being able to deliver significant and sustained quantities of ordnance to the theatre.

A smaller naval version of the Raider could keep big deck carriers relevant and at a safe distance.

Plausible, although given that F/A-XX seems likely to be tasked with OCA/DCA duties alongside strike missions, something a bit quicker might be needed. Time shall tell I guess!

 

[Terran]

A smaller naval version of the Raider could keep big deck carriers relevant and at a safe distance.

If you don’t mind some opinion.
Retired Navy Captain Henry “Jerry” Hendrix has been talking about that idea for years although rather than a manned Raider he focuses on an unmanned aircraft bomber Using as reference the Mq25 or X47c. This said he has been critical of the Super carrier pushing a smaller concept. Which though interesting seems like a step backwards.
However I think you are both Talking about the Aircraft concept a sort of modern take on the old North American A-5 Vigilante. The problem I see with it is that although you now are (just) safely out of range of the ground based missiles, have potential threat counter by air based.
Chinese H6N model sports a recessed hard point seemingly designed for an air launched Df21 derivative.

New Photos Point To Chinese Bomber Being Able To Carry Huge Anti-Ship Ballistic Missiles

The H-6N missile carrier adds another long-range and very unpredictable layer to China's already formidable anti-access umbrella.

www.thedrive.com

This move seems like a preemptive step to a Carrier based long range bomber whether manned or unmanned. To counter it seems like we would need stronger air defenses around the flat top, and extend tanking. Basically top off your bombers to give them longer legs and stronger defenses to ensure they still have a deck to land on.
Using an unmanned long range bomber with VLO hasn’t seemed to be a priority for Nav air. Heck they at times seem totally adverse. The X47B carrier landed yet now only graces the fleet arm of a museum. https://www.navalaviationmuseum.org/aircraft/x-47b/
The are getting MQ25 a good platform with potential but it’s not VLO at most it’s LO is mission set to serve as a flying Jerry can. Buddy stores with wings. It may down the line pickup more roles like unmanned surveillance. But not a bomber.
That still doesn’t cover the carrier either. Any VLO naval long legged bomber would likely have to be unmanned to keep weight down and size down well allowing reduced pilot risk and sub sonic to ease fuel consumption and range. To reverse the F15 motra “not a pound for air to air.“
Aspects that would make it a poor choice to replace F/A18 when a fighter would be needed possibly more than today as the air denial force has to go hunting.
@Boagrius just beat me to the CSBA Article, I was already linking to the “reader’s digest“ version so to speak. (Been typing This for an hour trying to keep this from sounding like mad ramblings.)
https://csbaonline.org/uploads/documents/Regaining_the_High_Ground_at_Sea.pdf
The F/AXX seems oriented more to the Big F little A vs the F35 and F/A18 which are more little f Big A strike fighters.
To assist this might also be a push to supplement the Hawkeyes, Mq25 has been recommended for use as a surveillance platform. A podded AEW Radar might be able to extend the CVW sphere of observation. Using data links to transmit as opposed to voice.

 

[Boagrius]

My suspicion is that the solution to the ASBM problem lies not just in defeating the weapons themselves (soft kill & SM6) but disrupting the entire kill chain needed to support them. To my mind, obtaining the needed targeting data to cue an ASBM volley against a CSG operating ~1000nm from the PRC coast is no small task, and one that could be disrupted at multiple points. For example:

- SM3 already has the potential to destroy the ISR satellites (eg. Yaogan) involved in ASBM targeting. Non-kinetic options may be preferable here but I am not as sure about what systems would exist in this space.

- Assuming they can "see" far enough with sufficient resolution (not a given IMO) OTHR assets like OTH-B are fixed by their nature and could be targeted by numerous present and planned standoff weapons. The fact that they are based in mainland PRC potentially makes them a delicate issue though - I imagine RoE could be prohibitive here in some contingencies.

- Air-breathing ISR assets are another piece of the puzzle that F/A-XX will likely have to help address. The PRC seem to be experimenting with a variety of concepts here including the Soar Dragon (HALE), Sharp Sword (VLO) and WZ-8 (hypersonic) UAVs. For the first two, the traditional defence in depth approach seems appropriate, although the latter may require an emphasis on long range SAMs like SM6/3 (depending on speed/altitude/engagement geometry).

 

[Terran]

Killing the system targeting them is easier no doubt especially if they decide to try and mate in hypersonic glide vehicle.
ASAT of course has the issue of leaving a nasty debris field, although there has been talk of anti satellite satellites. It seems like a long shot to have one just in the right place at the right time.
Absolutely agree on over the horizon radar. Those need to be massive especially at the ranges we are talking.

In the latter category is part of the reason I think fighters become more relevant. Nailing drones and surveillance aircraft expanding the net into which they can be caught.
A side note here is that this kind of conversation doesn’t need to lock specifically to the PRC although they are the most relevant. Russian forces are also looking At Counter intervention, the recent Iranian naval exercise included reportedly firing Ballistic missiles into their carrier barge target. Clearly showing interest in pushing America out.

Iran Fires Missiles At Its Fake Carrier, Says Its Satellite Has Been Watching From Above (Updated)

The last time the Iranians trotted out the mock aircraft carrier for an exercise, they eventually blew it up.

www.thedrive.com

The DPRK has been working on Antiship missiles too. Basically if you are the kinda guy who who might have a US carrier ruin your day ASBMs are the best option. And beating those is a necessity if the USN intends to keep them a threat.

 

[Boagrius]

I think the ASBM problem is one that the USN will need to stay on top of regardless of what it does with its carriers. Any ASBM that can target a CSG could just as readily hit an MEU, or a SAG comprised of Arleigh Burke/Tico/FFG(X) etc. As I mentioned earlier, the ISR apparatus required to make the ASBM capability work strikes me as the most vulnerable part of the kill chain, and the most attractive to target.

It is tempting to fixate on stopping the missiles themselves, but that may not be a winning proposition when VLS cells are limited and land-based ASBM stocks are likely to be less so. Dismantling or disrupting the ISR nodes means that ship-based interceptors only have to soak up leakers rather than attempt to provide an impenetrable, persistent ASBM shield around the CSG/SAG/MEU etc.

 

[John Fedup]

Some rather disappointing news about USN efforts to keep attack subs and carriers repaired and mission ready. Budget pressure is partly to blame but maybe greater emphasis on training trades people, engineers, and scientists instead of accountants and especially lawyers would help.

Grim Future For Repairing Navy Subs And Carriers On Time - Breaking Defense

With the Pentagon budget not expected to grow any time soon, the Navy is facing a major crunch in getting its carriers and attack subs back to sea.

breakingdefense.com

 

[ngatimozart]

USNI update on RIMPAC. No uninvited snoopers appear to have been around either. A video is embedded in the story.

No Russian or Chinese Presence at First Week of RIMPAC - USNI News

The U.S. Navy and partner nations have so far not encountered a Russian or Chinese maritime presence during the Rim of the Pacific 2020 exercise, according to a Navy official. “No, we’ve had no presence of [People’s Republic of China] or Russian Federation ships within our waters that we’re...

news.usni.org

 

[Blackshoe]

Some rather disappointing news about USN efforts to keep attack subs and carriers repaired and mission ready. Budget pressure is partly to blame but maybe greater emphasis on training trades people, engineers, and scientists instead of accountants and especially lawyers would help.

Grim Future For Repairing Navy Subs And Carriers On Time - Breaking Defense

With the Pentagon budget not expected to grow any time soon, the Navy is facing a major crunch in getting its carriers and attack subs back to sea.

breakingdefense.com

Semi-related: BHR is a total constructive loss, and it's largely because regardless of the state of the hull, it is not budgetarily logical at all (unless Congress is willing to open up a line of funding separate from the normal SCN pool).

 

[John Fedup]

Considering the repair delays with subs and carriers for normal maintenance and upgrades, I find the proposal in this article bizarre. Essentially the proposal is to repair the Bonhomme Richard as an exercise to improve USN/shipyard repair capability assuming this is possible after a damage assessment even though the cost may approach that of an outright replacement. The logic is the US could not replace damaged ships with new builds fast enough thus repair skills need to be enhanced.
Setting aside cost, would a new build be much slower than rebuilding the Bonhomme Richard? Just clearing out all the damaged stuff and assessing whether it can be rebuilt is time consuming. How far along would a new build be in this amount of time? Any peer to peer conflict will require navies to work with what they start with and losses won’t be replaced as the conflict with state of the art weapons will be over in months, if it continues longer it will be with obsolete kit.

Repairing the Bonhomme Richard Is Worth Almost Any Cost

Repairing the Bonhomme Richard may cost more than replacing her. But learning how to return a badly damaged warship to the fight is priceless.

www.usni.org

 

[John Fedup]

It seems there is the possibility of arson wrt the Bonhomme Richard fire according to this news story. A sailor is under investigation.

Sources: Sailor under investigation for arson in USS Bonhomme Richard ship fire

A Navy sailor is under investigation in connection with the fire that caused extensive damage to the USS Bonhomme Richard at Naval Base San Diego, sources told ABC 10News.

www.10news.com

 

[Systems Adict]

Considering the repair delays with subs and carriers for normal maintenance and upgrades, I find the proposal in this article bizarre. Essentially the proposal is to repair the Bonhomme Richard as an exercise to improve USN/shipyard repair capability assuming this is possible after a damage assessment even though the cost may approach that of an outright replacement. The logic is the US could not replace damaged ships with new builds fast enough thus repair skills need to be enhanced.
Setting aside cost, would a new build be much slower than rebuilding the Bonhomme Richard? Just clearing out all the damaged stuff and assessing whether it can be rebuilt is time consuming. How far along would a new build be in this amount of time? Any peer to peer conflict will require navies to work with what they start with and losses won’t be replaced as the conflict with state of the art weapons will be over in months, if it continues longer it will be with obsolete kit.

Repairing the Bonhomme Richard Is Worth Almost Any Cost

Repairing the Bonhomme Richard may cost more than replacing her. But learning how to return a badly damaged warship to the fight is priceless.

www.usni.org

Firstly, I have to admit that other than the news reports that came out at the time of the incident, I haven't read much else about what exactly happened, but for the content of this reply i want to put that to one side.

As an exercise in rebuilding lost skills & being pig headed to prove a point, I would say that there is a viability in what is being suggested for THIS ship. Other types / classes would automatically be written off due to their design / complexity &cost to repair versus replace. An overview of the last 15 years & the incidents/accidents that have befell several Arleigh Burke's, should not be viewed in the same way, as the AB's are still being manufactured, so it is feasible to have parts "made to order" for repairs.

Look at it logically. Imagine that an LHD is effectively x3 tiers of a wedding cake. The base is where all the fuel is stored & the majority of the plant that allow the ship to operate (Engines / gearbox / steering controls / fuel tanks). The middle tier is the cavernous space where the landing dock is / storage for vehicles (land & water based) / hangar area for storage/care/maintenance of aircraft (including the bomb shops / magazines). Upper tier is the flight deck / bridge / control tower for flight ops & the radar / radio / communications farm.

At this time the base is effectively intact (albeit that miles of cables that go from power generation / signalling systems / comms, all go to areas that have been ravaged by fire, making them effectively useless / needing replaced).

The middle & upper tiers are where all the damage is & while the ship is 20 odd years old, she would be likely to have been kept in service for a total of 45 - 50 years. The US is one of the few nations in the western world to predominately keep her old ships, so with over 250 vessels currently on the books as active, there are probably around another 200 vessels of different types & classes, sat in various states of 'mothballed' conditions.

The US has a wide/varied amount of equipment, but it has had a tendency to try & keep continuity across classes/types for decades, only really updating the newest vessels joining the fleet with the newest equipment, then slowly updating & retrofitting older ships as they progress. It is this wide base of kit & its length of service that will give the US Navy the ability to pull-thru a lot of 'older equipment' to rebuild / keep the LHD going.

The retrofit of new steel to the upper two tiers will be a hard task, but 2 - 4 years of work (with no hard charging to get the ship back into the fleet), they should be able to manage it. From a cost perspective if the have to spend 30 - 55% of what the ship originally cost, then it will be worth it, as they will effectively be saving 45 - 70% of the cost of a complete new ship.

I appreciate that it will be an uphill battle, with many from our modern 'throw-away' society questioning the logic, but as long as the surveyors / structural engineers & Naval Architects believe it is possible & the Navy/Administration are prepared to fund it, it will be a totally worth while exercise...