US Navy News and updates

colay

New Member
Which probably goes some way to explain the noise coming out about the USMC and their landing craft and AAV no longer going to be effective in the future, about how technology is forcing ships to stand off further and further from the coast and existing platforms don't have the necessary capabilities to make those transits from longer ranges as effective as they need to be.
One intriguing concept for transporting equipment and materiel fromthe Seabase to the action ashore is the UHAC. Same footprint as a LCAC or but with 3X the load capacity and twice the range while estimated at half the cost to buy and operate. UHAC is slower than LCAC but 20knots isn't too,shabby and it trumps LCAC 10-ft. seawalls. Just looks like a giant,goofy kid's toy with it's foam paddles.:)
 

swerve

Super Moderator
yep my bad meant to half that when I put it through the currency converter, but still a big difference all the same.

Australia would be in a different position to the UK goverment in regards to ordering a QEC wonder what you could do for a fixed price buy?

would be interesting to see if POW came out any cheaper as they would have some idea where to cut cost in the second build.
A third ship, if ordered soon, should be cheaper. There are fixed costs (e.g. the rebuilding of a dock at Rosyth) which were bundled up into the cost, & the stretching out of the build, playing around with switch to F-35C/back to F-35B, etc. added a lot.of cost. Without those, a third ship could be a few hundred million cheaper, if ordered while the workforce & the facilities round the UK are all still in place.

But a delayed order could generate fixed costs to replace things which will be shut down when PoW work ends. :(
 

swerve

Super Moderator
Why weren't the LHA-6 and 7 given "Ski-Jumps", would only take up one or two Helicopter spots and would improve AV8 and F35 launching.
Official reason: losing a helicopter spot compromises their primary function, which is amphibious assault. Their primary function must not be compromised.

Rumoured reason: it would make them too good as fixed-wing carriers & thus (in the eyes of the USN) put the big cat & trap carriers at risk of losing funding in favour of STOVL carriers.

Remember, the US Congress can & does remove money from the budget for specific projects, & insert money to buy other things even if the armed forces don't ask for them.
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
A third ship, if ordered soon, should be cheaper. There are fixed costs (e.g. the rebuilding of a dock at Rosyth) which were bundled up into the cost, & the stretching out of the build, playing around with switch to F-35C/back to F-35B, etc. added a lot.of cost. Without those, a third ship could be a few hundred million cheaper, if ordered while the workforce & the facilities round the UK are all still in place.

But a delayed order could generate fixed costs to replace things which will be shut down when PoW work ends. :(
Well hopefully it won't take too long for the Australian government to work out that our LPDs are better off being left as is to fill their intended mission rather than converting them into carriers and that the best way forward if they want a carrier is to buy a purpose designed one ;)
 

t68

Well-Known Member
Well hopefully it won't take too long for the Australian government to work out that our LPDs are better off being left as is to fill their intended mission rather than converting them into carriers and that the best way forward if they want a carrier is to buy a purpose designed one ;)
Yes would be an interesting proposition with either the Queen Elizabeth or America class both are being built as we speak, but we are talking about the goverment nothing ever moves fast by the time the report comes out in regards to F35B they will need another report to validate the original report.

I would imagine it would be close to the cut off for a third QE in regards to long lead time items. Not sure how it would affect the Americans as they virtually have a carrier build all the time, weather it's the gator navy or the big boys toys.
 

alexsa

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Yes would be an interesting proposition with either the Queen Elizabeth or America class both are being built as we speak, but we are talking about the goverment nothing ever moves fast by the time the report comes out in regards to F35B they will need another report to validate the original report.

I would imagine it would be close to the cut off for a third QE in regards to long lead time items. Not sure how it would affect the Americans as they virtually have a carrier build all the time, weather it's the gator navy or the big boys toys.
Off topic really, but I doubt Australia will buy a CVF for both political and cost reasons. The LHA6 class seems to be in the same situation. Even a dedicated STOLV carrier such as the Cavior is an optimistic call but a better fit for the RAN IMHO..
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Well hopefully it won't take too long for the Australian government to work out that our LPDs are better off being left as is to fill their intended mission rather than converting them into carriers and that the best way forward if they want a carrier is to buy a purpose designed one ;)
Well I would hope that someone deals with the Govts thought bubble and reinforces that the phatships are not the same internally as the JC-1

There's some rework to be done if they are to become pretend carriers

and rework is not trivial - or cheap
 

aussienscale

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Well I would hope that someone deals with the Govts thought bubble and reinforces that the phatships are not the same internally as the JC-1

There's some rework to be done if they are to become pretend carriers

and rework is not trivial - or cheap
Exactly, it would be major scope creep on the Canberra's and will actually take away a much needed capability that we need. Dare I say it but Singapore could be looking for a partner ? Big IF though, not long to wait for the DWP, but either way I do not see a QE or LHA6 as a viable option
 

Massive

Well-Known Member
Exactly, it would be major scope creep on the Canberra's and will actually take away a much needed capability that we need. Dare I say it but Singapore could be looking for a partner ? Big IF though, not long to wait for the DWP, but either way I do not see a QE or LHA6 as a viable option
A modified Canberra class could be the basis for a carrier though.

You could have two LHD (Amphibious) and two LHD (Aviation), with the latter having additional bunkerage for aviation fuel.

Regards,

Massive
 

t68

Well-Known Member
Exactly, it would be major scope creep on the Canberra's and will actually take away a much needed capability that we need. Dare I say it but Singapore could be looking for a partner ? Big IF though, not long to wait for the DWP, but either way I do not see a QE or LHA6 as a viable option
Yes wasn't Singapore looking into using the Endurance class hull and making a carrier from it, I know their is interst in Singapore regarding F35B, haven't heard anything for a while if it's still on the cards or not.
 

aussienscale

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro

swerve

Super Moderator
Yes wasn't Singapore looking into using the Endurance class hull and making a carrier from it, I know their is interst in Singapore regarding F35B, haven't heard anything for a while if it's still on the cards or not.
They'd need to enlarge it. It's only 140 metres or so long. Ships designed to operate F-35B are all well over 200 metres long, & about four times the tonnage. Even the enlarged Endurance 160 with a through deck is only just over 160 metres, i.e. much smaller than any F-35B carrier out there.
 

FormerDirtDart

Well-Known Member
One intriguing concept for transporting equipment and materiel fromthe Seabase to the action ashore is the UHAC. Same footprint as a LCAC or but with 3X the load capacity and twice the range while estimated at half the cost to buy and operate. UHAC is slower than LCAC but 20knots isn't too,shabby and it trumps LCAC 10-ft. seawalls. Just looks like a giant,goofy kid's toy with it's foam paddles.:)

Recently, the USMC Commandant, Gen. Amos mentioned that they are looking at using the Navy's new JHSVs to essentially bridge the distance between far offshore staged gators, and the distance that an amphibious combat vehicle could easily and quickly swim.
Amos rejects recent critique of amphibious combat vehicle | Marine Corps Times | marinecorpstimes.com

Basic COO would be the ACVs load JHSVs from gators (or I would guess even Ro-Ro ships via MLP), JSHVs sprint toward shore, ACVs launch via JHSV ramp (possibly modified to make this possible) and swim shorter distance to shore.

Now, to me, the JHSV would still seem to be a awfully damn big target that close to an even marginally contested shore. I don't think it would be possible to do something similar with a LCAC or it's upgraded replacement the Ship-to-Shore Connector (SSC) as I believe the must deflate their skirts to deploy the bow or stern ramps. Basically the same reason they can't be used for the initial assault landings. Also, I don't know how well they would float, in various sea conditions, with deflated skirts.

But, since the Navy is still (AFAIK) looking to replace or recap the 1600-class LCUs, something like the BMT tri-bow fast landing craft might be a good option. Yes, they're smaller w/less capacity than the LCU 1600. And sure, they would be slower than a JHSV, but faster than current LCUs, and all your proverbial eggs aren't in one basket like with the JHSV concept.
 

RobWilliams

Super Moderator
Staff member
US Navy's Cruiser Problem | Defense News | defensenews.com

Interesting link about the future of US Ticonderoga cruisers, it discusses how in a US CBG the destroyers can disperse on different tasks but the carrier is alwaysmeant to have a Tico escorting her.

It also discusses the plan to use Flight III Arleigh Burkes in the role, about how there was a consideration to put the enhanced AAW suites in a stretches AB hull but that was discontinued in favour of standard ships but this causes complications about the ABs ability to accept an air warfare commander plus staff and have the proper command, control and communications fit out to properly do the job.

Frankly I found it an interesting read discussing the differences between the CGs and DDGs
 

AegisFC

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Putting an embarked command of any type isn't fun on a Burke. It isn't just the number of consoles the Burkes are missing, it is the type. A Burke has 3 ADS consoles for its own CO, TAO and an assistant. A Tico has those and an additional 3 for the embarked staff, plus an associated set of large screens that they control outside of the crew.
If the Flight III's are going to be stretched then adding an embarked staff room with the required consoles and an expanded radio room will not be that hard.

Talking to people in the fleet the general consensus is that the Tico's are not worth saving. They've been rode hard and put away wet far too long. The Rummy years were not good for the surface fleet, too much deep maintenance was deferred or skipped, shipyard periods were curtailed or shortened and too many people were transferred to IA billets in a desert and not on ship doing maintenance and painting. This was the same period that because too many ships were failing INSURV the answer was to classify the INSURV reports rather than fix the problems. Never mind that those reports have been unclassified since INSURV was established and even through the cold war anyone could get a copy of how a ship performed.
 

colay

New Member
Plenty of space and power if they adapt a DDG-1000 hull for the role. Burkes are already the highest density ships in terms of onboard systems IIRC.
 

colay

New Member
The UHAC is a beast, even half-scale. Check out the video.
In addition to impressive performance. Compared to LCAC/SSC, a production UHAC is projected to cost 50% less to buy and operate.


The Marines Test the LCAC Replacement: The Ultra Heavy-Lift Amphibious Connector (UHAC) | SLDInfo
THE MARINES TEST THE LCAC REPLACEMENT: THE ULTRA HEAVY-LIFT AMPHIBIOUS CONNECTOR (UHAC)
According to an article by By Lance Cpl. Erik Estrada published on March 18, 2014:

Members of the Marine Corps Warfighting Lab arrived here to test a model version of the Ultra Heavy-lift Amphibious Connector (UHAC) March 3.

The UHAC is an amphibious craft that has three times the lift capacity and greater coastal access than the Landing Craft Air Cushion (LCAC.)

“It’s promising because it allows a greater lift and it’s exciting to see,” said Capt. James Pineiro, the Ground Combat Element branch head, at the Marine Corps Warfighting Laboratory.

Less than half the size of the actual UHAC, the Warfighting Laboratory was here to see their project in action for the first time after years of planning.

If the concept model goes through, the UHAC could work side by side with the LCAC, which currently does all the ship-to-shore transportation of everything from High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle (HMMWV) to tanks.

“The full-scale model should be able to carry at least three tanks and a HMMVW,” said Gunnery Sgt. Joseph Perera, the lab’s Infantry Weapons Project Officer. “It’s going to save a lot of time and fuel for the Marine Corps as well.”

Although the concept model doesn’t appear to be armored well, the final production is planned to have armor plating and .50-caliber machine guns, which Perera says are needed on the UHAC to be able to protect itself.

“The UHAC’s goal is to have more combat power and breach the land further than the LCAC,” said Pineiro.

“All this is part of the ‘next effort’ that the Office of Naval Research and the Marine Corps Warfighting Lab are looking at for connectors, which bring more combat vehicles and power to shore quickly,” said Mr. Geoffrey Main, Program Manager at the Office of Naval Research. “The UHAC full scale should climb a 12 to 16 foot wall when it is completed. It can go over everything short of a 16 to 18 foot seawall.”
 

Sea Toby

New Member
I would imagine it would be close to the cut off for a third QE in regards to long lead time items. Not sure how it would affect the Americans as they virtually have a carrier build all the time, weather it's the gator navy or the big boys toys.
While both of our political parties fuss over defense appropriations, neither party fusses over closing the Newport News or Ingalls shipyards. So much has been invested into both shipyards there isn't any thought about closing them. Congress keeps both shipyards open with just enough business to do so. The same applies to the Electric Boat shipyard concerning submarines, and Bath Iron Works with destroyers and frigates. The latest shipyard to close was Avondale after they messed up the first of the San Antonio LPDs.
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
While both of our political parties fuss over defense appropriations, neither party fusses over closing the Newport News or Ingalls shipyards. So much has been invested into both shipyards there isn't any thought about closing them. Congress keeps both shipyards open with just enough business to do so. The same applies to the Electric Boat shipyard concerning submarines, and Bath Iron Works with destroyers and frigates. The latest shipyard to close was Avondale after they messed up the first of the San Antonio LPDs.
I honestly don't know why the US continues to waste money supporting inefficient shipbuilders when they could quite clearly get much better value for money building their ships in South Korea. Just think of the savings to be made and the beneficial effect this would have on the budget bottom line.
 

RobWilliams

Super Moderator
Staff member
So much has been invested into both shipyards there isn't any thought about closing them. Congress keeps both shipyards open with just enough business to do so. The same applies to the Electric Boat shipyard concerning submarines,
The Virginia program is the poster child for how military shipbuilding should be run with units being built under budget and months ahead of schedule.

When a yard is building a product which is exceeding all expectations, surely that is the prime reason not to close it as opposed to the investment? More than that, doesn't it show that the investment in the yard was well made and is already bearing fruit?
 
Top