We see a lot of European warships in America, but not near as many as US warships are in the Mediterranean. We hardly ever see European warships, whether destroyers or frigates, on the US west coast. Probably at this moment, there are more US warships in the Indian Ocean than European warships on the US east coast, much less the US west coast. The US needs the larger sized warships, forget whether they are designated as destroyers or frigates, to steam half way around the world for a deployment. Our territory of Guam is futher away from the US west coast than the Middle East is from Europe. But its true, Europeans consider frigates front line warships. In the past the US hasn't, notice not one of the US frigates have ever had twin screws since the Korean war.
Future USN surface fleet
- Thread starter Big-E
- Start date
F-15 Eagle
New Member
I think the size of the U.S. Navy will increase some but with the current budget projections I don't know about the 313 ship plan. I think they should build up the aircraft carrier force back to 12 instead of 11 and build the Virginia class submarine faster.
We only have 1 yard capable of building a CVN so we are stuck replacing them on a one for one basis. Getting rid of the Kitty Hawk and the JFK makes a lot of sense, financially. The JFK was useless thanks to years of not getting the money it needed, having its SLEP canceled in 1992 (by Bush Sr. Administration Secretary of Defense, Dick Cheney) and the reassigning of the ship to the Naval Reserve Force didn't help either. The navy wanted to get rid of it for years but couldn't and once they did get rid of the JFK having only one CV was an unnecessary and expensive ship that required unique schools, logistical support, training, inspections, ect, so getting rid of it frees that money up for other things.
Destroyer and Frigates are needed more than another carrier, they need a number of smaller ships that can do the VBSS (Visit Board, Search and Seizure), anti-drug ops, general patrol and other missions that are important but are honestly a waste of a Burke or Tico.
F-15 Eagle
New Member
What kind of ships do you think the U.S. Navy should buy?
We have enough Burkes, Ticenderogas, and carriers. Keep replacing them as they are retired. So during this next decade we need to beef up the attack submarine force, and buy better ships for the littoral, i.e., the LCS. The US Navy should get out of the frigate business. This is the direction the US Navy is going, but there are those who wish to continue to build frigates the US Navy don't want. The LCS will provide a large number of ships which can also be used to do the ocean escorting role, but develop our littoral roles considerably, despite their costs. A bit more than a frigate, but far less than a destroyer. Frankly, I don't care whether 30 or 60 LCS are built.
The marines wish for better gun fire support, thus we should build a few DDGX. The US Navy hasn't purchased a twin gun ship since the Adams class. Its about time we do buy a few. I will admit I think the DDGX is too large, I would think a ship around 10,000 tons displacement would be sufficient. But the more cells for land attack missiles, the larger the ship becomes. Any new CGX should be built to replace CG-47s. Fortuantely, the US Navy doesn't need to buy cruisers at the moment, they still have ten years of life left.
The US Navy did attempt to build patrol ships for the SEALs, unfortunately they were to deep in drought to be useful. Bu the time one added modern sensors, they weren't large enough. If the LCS is the ticket for a lower draft vessel for SEAL operations, and large enough for ocean escorting, I favor their construction.
The marines wish for better gun fire support, thus we should build a few DDGX. The US Navy hasn't purchased a twin gun ship since the Adams class. Its about time we do buy a few. I will admit I think the DDGX is too large, I would think a ship around 10,000 tons displacement would be sufficient. But the more cells for land attack missiles, the larger the ship becomes. Any new CGX should be built to replace CG-47s. Fortuantely, the US Navy doesn't need to buy cruisers at the moment, they still have ten years of life left.
The US Navy did attempt to build patrol ships for the SEALs, unfortunately they were to deep in drought to be useful. Bu the time one added modern sensors, they weren't large enough. If the LCS is the ticket for a lower draft vessel for SEAL operations, and large enough for ocean escorting, I favor their construction.
Last edited:
F-15 Eagle
New Member
So will the DDGX be another battleship? How many of those are they buying. I just know that its very expensive and some people want to cancel it. I also do think the LCS will be a good replacement for the frigate.
Two DDGX, Elmo Zumwalts, have been bought, I think last year. The US Navy asked for two or three more this year, eventually to get to seven I believe, but the House, I am not sure about the Senate, refused to buy them and bought a couple of more Burkes and a LHA instead among other ships. There is a large price difference, $3 billion for each DDGX, whereas $2 billion for a Burke. The DDGX will be equipped with two new type 155-mm guns.
Along with LCS, and I don't really care how many DDGXs either, plus a number of attack submarines, what should be built this upcoming decade? The point in the thread is that since the carriers are being bought, and we have enough cruisers and destroyers, what ships do you wish to buy this decade besides?
So many have a count threshold, I don't. I just want a well balanced fleet.
Along with LCS, and I don't really care how many DDGXs either, plus a number of attack submarines, what should be built this upcoming decade? The point in the thread is that since the carriers are being bought, and we have enough cruisers and destroyers, what ships do you wish to buy this decade besides?
So many have a count threshold, I don't. I just want a well balanced fleet.
The whole size of the US Navy comes down to force projection.
You need a certain amount of aircraft carrier to provide firepower anywhere on the globe. Each aircraft carrier requires a certain amount of escorts. If you cannot protect your carriers then you are in trouble. A dozen semi-protected carriers may not do the same job of 8 well protected carriers.
If the US Navy cannot afford top protection for all its carriers then it should reduce the number of aircraft carriers. As its difficult to stop and restart carrier construction it would be easier to retire or sell the two oldest aircraft carriers in the fleet.
For me it starts from the top at the very tip of the sword. Higher quality aircraft will enable more force projection from each carrier allowing for fewer aircraft carriers yet still provide the required level of global dominance. Fewer aircraft carriers need fewer escorts so the money saved on escorts could then be spend on future longer ranged aircraft providing even better force projection or increasing the protection of the carriers allowing them to be more effective.
For instance you could have two airbase's each equipped with 50 F-16's fighting a single airbase equiped with 50 F-22's. The 50 F-22's may cost more to purchase than 100 F-16's but once u take into account the running costs of the second airbase the F-22 option is much cheaper.
Regarding the future cruiser I think it should not be produced. It may cost twice as much as the destroyer when you look at the sail away price, but if you include development costs over a small production run you could possibly buy FOUR destroyers for the price of one cruiser.
The LCS costs so damn much due to its advanced systems trying to make it the best at every role. They should be produced with a less comprehensive weapon system. But have provision for cheaper future bolt ons that can be paid for later.
You need a certain amount of aircraft carrier to provide firepower anywhere on the globe. Each aircraft carrier requires a certain amount of escorts. If you cannot protect your carriers then you are in trouble. A dozen semi-protected carriers may not do the same job of 8 well protected carriers.
If the US Navy cannot afford top protection for all its carriers then it should reduce the number of aircraft carriers. As its difficult to stop and restart carrier construction it would be easier to retire or sell the two oldest aircraft carriers in the fleet.
For me it starts from the top at the very tip of the sword. Higher quality aircraft will enable more force projection from each carrier allowing for fewer aircraft carriers yet still provide the required level of global dominance. Fewer aircraft carriers need fewer escorts so the money saved on escorts could then be spend on future longer ranged aircraft providing even better force projection or increasing the protection of the carriers allowing them to be more effective.
For instance you could have two airbase's each equipped with 50 F-16's fighting a single airbase equiped with 50 F-22's. The 50 F-22's may cost more to purchase than 100 F-16's but once u take into account the running costs of the second airbase the F-22 option is much cheaper.
Regarding the future cruiser I think it should not be produced. It may cost twice as much as the destroyer when you look at the sail away price, but if you include development costs over a small production run you could possibly buy FOUR destroyers for the price of one cruiser.
The LCS costs so damn much due to its advanced systems trying to make it the best at every role. They should be produced with a less comprehensive weapon system. But have provision for cheaper future bolt ons that can be paid for later.
weasel1962
New Member
Re:
Deleted
Deleted
Last edited:
When did the USAF trumped the USN? I see the USN and USCG protecting our borders, fighting the flow of illegal aliens and drugs. Unfortunately, I do no see the USAF doing the same. Frankly, the USAF has been a no show against the flow of illegal aliens and drugs.
The Department of Homeland Security has done much more. Maybe we should cut the USAF in half and enlarge the USCG.
The Department of Homeland Security has done much more. Maybe we should cut the USAF in half and enlarge the USCG.
Which gets more use? Carrier aircraft or land based aircraft?
weasel1962
New Member
Re:
Deleted
Deleted
Last edited:
I am not sure you can discuss the future surface ship needs of the Navy without touching on naval aviation, submarines and coast guard/national security mission. They are all interrelated. Further you cannot identify the needs of the Navy without first determining what it's future mission will be.
If you assume that US military policy and commitments will remain essentially unchanged (dubious) for the next 30 years then I think you can identify the future needs of the Navy with some degree of accuracy.
First the Navy has to get realistic. Seven hundred and fifty million dollars for what is essentially a brown water frigate is ridiculous. The LCS does not have to do 45 knots and it does not have to be all things for all missions. It needs to be inexpensive, plentiful and useful. As an added bonus the basic ship should be suitable for use by the Coast Guard as a high endurance cutter. It needs to be able to sustain 25-30 knots in open ocean. Have a draft shallow enough to be able to operate reasonably close to shore and it would be nice if there was some degree of LO characteristics. It should be diesel powered have the room to carry a sonar and a good multi function radar. It should be fitted with a large hanger able to accommodate an MV-22 or two SH-60s or an SH-60 and two UAVs. After that fit weapon systems to tailor the mission. This would in effect be an enlarged and modernized FFG-7. Build lots of these to two different variants. One variant would be optimized for the coast guard, one optimized as a general purpose frigate that is able to operate independently in medium threat areas, and one with a smaller hanger fitted with a VLS launcher and a gun to support the Marines.
Next build the DDGN-1000, but lose the fancy gun. The marine fire support mission is a waste. Gone are the days when the marines will storm the shore. This ship should be optimized as a carrier AAW escort with a secondary mission of augmenting a carriers ASuW power with large number of VLS launchers. It should be nuclear, and it should be big. These ships will serve well into the 21st cenury and they need to be big enough and have enough electrical generation capacity to be able to power any new energy based weapon that may come on line in the coming years. Build 20 of these. Two for each carrier.
The Virginias should continue to be built so that there are fifty SSN's in the fleet. Two more Ohios should be converted to SSGN/special mission subs. The remaining 12 Ohios should be moderinized and the D5 missiles upgraded. Ideally a new class of "fleet submarines" should be built optimized so that they have a high submerged tactical speed so that they can escort the carriers and perform the primary ASW role for the carriers. Again a class of 20 should suffice. These subs would be based roughly on the SSN-21.
I agree with others, there should be a reduction in the number of carriers to 10. Rather than spend money on a totally new class of CVN, new construction should continue to be evolutionary rather than revolutionary. There should be no marine squadrons embarked. Rather, there should be 5 full squadrons composed of a mix of F/A-18s and F-35Cs. The F-35B should be relegated to the LHAs. An ASW version of the MV-22 should be developed and deployed along with either rebuilt S-3s or some other airframe for tanking and ASW. Figure an airwing with about 86 aircraft all together. Gone should be the days when carriers deploy with a shell of an air wing. Each carrier battle group would consist of a CVN, two DDGN-1000s and two new SSN-21 type subs.
Over time the Ticos, and DDG-51 would be drawn down to numbers where they are still used to escort the amphibs, and provide area air defense, ASW for the LCS/Frigates, and supply ships when deemed necessary.
If you assume that US military policy and commitments will remain essentially unchanged (dubious) for the next 30 years then I think you can identify the future needs of the Navy with some degree of accuracy.
First the Navy has to get realistic. Seven hundred and fifty million dollars for what is essentially a brown water frigate is ridiculous. The LCS does not have to do 45 knots and it does not have to be all things for all missions. It needs to be inexpensive, plentiful and useful. As an added bonus the basic ship should be suitable for use by the Coast Guard as a high endurance cutter. It needs to be able to sustain 25-30 knots in open ocean. Have a draft shallow enough to be able to operate reasonably close to shore and it would be nice if there was some degree of LO characteristics. It should be diesel powered have the room to carry a sonar and a good multi function radar. It should be fitted with a large hanger able to accommodate an MV-22 or two SH-60s or an SH-60 and two UAVs. After that fit weapon systems to tailor the mission. This would in effect be an enlarged and modernized FFG-7. Build lots of these to two different variants. One variant would be optimized for the coast guard, one optimized as a general purpose frigate that is able to operate independently in medium threat areas, and one with a smaller hanger fitted with a VLS launcher and a gun to support the Marines.
Next build the DDGN-1000, but lose the fancy gun. The marine fire support mission is a waste. Gone are the days when the marines will storm the shore. This ship should be optimized as a carrier AAW escort with a secondary mission of augmenting a carriers ASuW power with large number of VLS launchers. It should be nuclear, and it should be big. These ships will serve well into the 21st cenury and they need to be big enough and have enough electrical generation capacity to be able to power any new energy based weapon that may come on line in the coming years. Build 20 of these. Two for each carrier.
The Virginias should continue to be built so that there are fifty SSN's in the fleet. Two more Ohios should be converted to SSGN/special mission subs. The remaining 12 Ohios should be moderinized and the D5 missiles upgraded. Ideally a new class of "fleet submarines" should be built optimized so that they have a high submerged tactical speed so that they can escort the carriers and perform the primary ASW role for the carriers. Again a class of 20 should suffice. These subs would be based roughly on the SSN-21.
I agree with others, there should be a reduction in the number of carriers to 10. Rather than spend money on a totally new class of CVN, new construction should continue to be evolutionary rather than revolutionary. There should be no marine squadrons embarked. Rather, there should be 5 full squadrons composed of a mix of F/A-18s and F-35Cs. The F-35B should be relegated to the LHAs. An ASW version of the MV-22 should be developed and deployed along with either rebuilt S-3s or some other airframe for tanking and ASW. Figure an airwing with about 86 aircraft all together. Gone should be the days when carriers deploy with a shell of an air wing. Each carrier battle group would consist of a CVN, two DDGN-1000s and two new SSN-21 type subs.
Over time the Ticos, and DDG-51 would be drawn down to numbers where they are still used to escort the amphibs, and provide area air defense, ASW for the LCS/Frigates, and supply ships when deemed necessary.
The Osprey costs more than a Viking, a Viking has much more speed than an Osprey. Why not build new modern models of Vikings instead to round out a carrier air wing?
I have heard many suggesting to cut a carrier, doing so will reduce the number of escorts and replenishment ships required, but which fleet will you cut? The Atlantic or the Pacific? Or both? Some have suggested cutting the fleet of carriers down to six.
While six carriers will provide one carrier task group forwardly deployed to the Atlantic and Pacific, another could be brought forward in a crisis. Unfortunately, that second carrier may take weeks to arrive.
As long as an ocean escort has self air defense capability, why do you need long range air area defense? That question is why the FFG-7s have had their SAM missile launchers decapitated, and the reason why the US Navy wants LCSs, armed with RAMs.
With no enemy having enough submarines to deny our usage of the sea lanes today, I believe the US Navy is thinking correctly with the LCSs, wanting those vessels to be multi-rolled vessels especially for the littoral regions. While we no longer have a threat of a large submarine fleet, many more nations have coastal submarines in the littoral regions in an attempt to deny their seas. In the future more will have to be done in the littorals.
And while everyone is concerned about the price of fuel, adding a nuclear plant to warship adds at least another one billion dollars to the price tag up front whether the ship is a carrier or a destroyer or a submarine.
I have heard many suggesting to cut a carrier, doing so will reduce the number of escorts and replenishment ships required, but which fleet will you cut? The Atlantic or the Pacific? Or both? Some have suggested cutting the fleet of carriers down to six.
While six carriers will provide one carrier task group forwardly deployed to the Atlantic and Pacific, another could be brought forward in a crisis. Unfortunately, that second carrier may take weeks to arrive.
As long as an ocean escort has self air defense capability, why do you need long range air area defense? That question is why the FFG-7s have had their SAM missile launchers decapitated, and the reason why the US Navy wants LCSs, armed with RAMs.
With no enemy having enough submarines to deny our usage of the sea lanes today, I believe the US Navy is thinking correctly with the LCSs, wanting those vessels to be multi-rolled vessels especially for the littoral regions. While we no longer have a threat of a large submarine fleet, many more nations have coastal submarines in the littoral regions in an attempt to deny their seas. In the future more will have to be done in the littorals.
And while everyone is concerned about the price of fuel, adding a nuclear plant to warship adds at least another one billion dollars to the price tag up front whether the ship is a carrier or a destroyer or a submarine.
Last edited:
F-15 Eagle
New Member
This might be a little off topic but what aircraft on on a carrier air wing? How many fighter-bombers, helicopters and other aircraft does each aircraft carrier carry?
From Wiki:
Typically this would be: 12 F/A-18E/F Hornets, 36 F/A-18 Hornets, four E-2C Hawkeyes, and four EA-6B Prowlers fixed-wing; and the following helicopters: four SH-60F and two HH-60H Seahawks. The carrier can also deploy S-3B Viking aircraft, but these are being phased out. Air wings can be varied according to the nature of the operation: for example, in 1994, 50 army helicopters replaced the usual air wing on the USS Dwight D Eisenhower during operations off Haiti.
Today's carrier air wings are smaller. I remember 24 Tomcats, 24 Intruders, 24 Corsair IIs, Vikings, and a similar number of helicopters. The Hornets are multi-role aircraft, replacing Tomcats and Intruders/Corsair IIs with better technology, although not one for one. The Vikings are being discarded because there isn't a large fleet of Soviet submarines threatening North Atlantic sea lanes any longer. Many of the Tomcats were hangar queens. All of today's Hornets could be used as fighters or bombers, Tomcats never bombed and the Corsairs could not fly attack missions at night.
Would I like to have another 12 Hornets and 6 new model Vikings aboard. Yes. But the US Navy doesn't want them, they are happy with what they have. Eventually the Hornets will be replaced by 360 naval F-35C Lightning IIs. They should replace every one of the regular Hornets, but not the Super Hornets. And as a topper, the Marine Corps want as many Lightning IIs, some as Bs and I think some as Cs. Even if they got only Bs, the Bs would be useful off a carrier.
Typically this would be: 12 F/A-18E/F Hornets, 36 F/A-18 Hornets, four E-2C Hawkeyes, and four EA-6B Prowlers fixed-wing; and the following helicopters: four SH-60F and two HH-60H Seahawks. The carrier can also deploy S-3B Viking aircraft, but these are being phased out. Air wings can be varied according to the nature of the operation: for example, in 1994, 50 army helicopters replaced the usual air wing on the USS Dwight D Eisenhower during operations off Haiti.
Today's carrier air wings are smaller. I remember 24 Tomcats, 24 Intruders, 24 Corsair IIs, Vikings, and a similar number of helicopters. The Hornets are multi-role aircraft, replacing Tomcats and Intruders/Corsair IIs with better technology, although not one for one. The Vikings are being discarded because there isn't a large fleet of Soviet submarines threatening North Atlantic sea lanes any longer. Many of the Tomcats were hangar queens. All of today's Hornets could be used as fighters or bombers, Tomcats never bombed and the Corsairs could not fly attack missions at night.
Would I like to have another 12 Hornets and 6 new model Vikings aboard. Yes. But the US Navy doesn't want them, they are happy with what they have. Eventually the Hornets will be replaced by 360 naval F-35C Lightning IIs. They should replace every one of the regular Hornets, but not the Super Hornets. And as a topper, the Marine Corps want as many Lightning IIs, some as Bs and I think some as Cs. Even if they got only Bs, the Bs would be useful off a carrier.
Last edited:
Starting from top to bottom:
Sure a new Viking may cost less but the Osprey can hover. You cannot use a nice big dipping sonar from a jet. The Osprey would be fast enough, carry enough payload and have enough range to be an airborne ASW asset that can pose a real threat to ultra quiet diesel electric subs due to it's ability to carry a powerful active dipping sonar.
Vikings should be resurrected for their ability to provide additional tanker support and scouting/ELINT.
Cutting the fleet of carriers to six is insane. Realistically you have always needed 2-3 carriers if you are going to use them offensively in a high risk environment. Six carriers is not enough to be able to guarantee that ability.
You need long range air defense for the times when your air wing is off projecting power. You need it for the aircraft and more important the cruise missiles that get through your BEARCAP. You need it for the sub launched cruise missile. You need it for theater ABM defense. They removed the MK13s from the Perry's as a cost savings measure. They have an all VLS fleet and the MK13 provided limited utility and sucked up big bucks. Think layered defenses.
The Navy ignores the submarine threat at it's peril. It only takes one sub lying silent on the bottom to mission kill a carrier and everyone has them. Much more so than the air threat, submarines have the capacity to ruin a carriers day big time. If a CVN takes casualties in the future I am willing to bet it's from some submarine that was in the right place at the right time. You want to minimize that risk and a few ASW dedicated assets would go a long way in doing so.
If you cannot maintain control and guarantee passage of your ships in blue water then the littoral battle space is already lost.
Nukes make more financial sense as size of ship and fuel costs increase. Nukes also have several very important tactical advantages due to not having to worry about fuel for the ship. Nukes also make sense in submarines, carriers and large surface combatants in that they have a unique ability to be able to provide relatively unlimited power (think speed, think electronics, think energy weapons) without taking up a lot of internal volume.
First lets keep in mind that one squadron of Hornets is usually an embarked Marine squadron. They will want that squadron to provide CAS to the grunts if the need arises. An important mission to be sure but it does take away from the Navy's mission.
Second, the Navy would jump at the chance to get another squadron of Supers on board except there is this thing called tight budgets right now.
Third the Marines have stated emphatically that the F-35s they get will be all F-35Bs. Quite a step down in payload and range form the C. It means that the Navy would be back to supporting three different aircraft types and employing them will be far different than employing the F-35C. Real bad idea and someone needs to tell the Marines that they either keep the F-35Bs use the LHAs and do with less so the Navy can buy more F-35Cs or they get F-35Cs as well and continue to deploy with the squids.
I have never supported cutting the fleet down to six carriers, I said "some have have suggested cutting the fleet of carriers down to six." I agree with all your reasons.
I look upon the Marines 12 Hornets aboard a carrier as much more effective in close air support, as useful as Navy Hornets for maritime strike, but not as effective as interceptors. An admiral would have to be crazy asking the Marines to do the interceptor job. There are still many navy squadrons aboard. I would only use the Marines Lightning IIs, all Bs, for maritime strike or close air support, never as interceptors. Where did I say I would? Stop reading between the lines. When one assumes, one makes an *** of themselves. I said, "the Bs would be useful off a carrier." I didn't say they would be better than Cs.
Frigates are tack on ships for today's carrier battle groups. Their reason for being has to do with ocean escorting. Since there are no threat to ocean escorting, they are included with carrier battle groups. But not for long, the US Navy wants out of the frigate business. I agree, the MK13 provided limited utility and sucked up big bucks. The US Navy has plenty of VLS cells on their Aegis cruisers and destroyers tasked to escort carriers. But the Mk 13 Perrys had much more area air defense than RAMs of the LCS useful for ocean escorting convoys, in low air threat areas.
Every Aegis cruiser, and around half of the Aegis destroyers, along with the carriers themselves, carry ASW helicopters. All of the escorts carry Mk 32 ASW torpedoes tubes. Do all the ships need to be armed with everything? The LCS slated for the ocean escorting role, think convoys not carriers, will carry the containers for ASW. Those used for mine hunting will carry containers for that role. All of the LCSs will have RAM self defense air missiles. All of the LCSs will have a helicopter hangar.
The US Navy wants LCS. Why do so many not want LCS? Does a frigate escorting convoys in low threat areas need any missile better than RAM? Yes, I do know ESSMs and SM-2s have much more range than RAM.
People want to build up the number of ships in the fleet. I offer a $400 million LCS, which many think will be at least $50 million cheaper when bought in numbers. Yet, they want nothing less than a Burke. Sorry, Burkes cost $2 billion, and we already have enough of them to escort our carriers and amphibious task forces.
I look upon the Marines 12 Hornets aboard a carrier as much more effective in close air support, as useful as Navy Hornets for maritime strike, but not as effective as interceptors. An admiral would have to be crazy asking the Marines to do the interceptor job. There are still many navy squadrons aboard. I would only use the Marines Lightning IIs, all Bs, for maritime strike or close air support, never as interceptors. Where did I say I would? Stop reading between the lines. When one assumes, one makes an *** of themselves. I said, "the Bs would be useful off a carrier." I didn't say they would be better than Cs.
Frigates are tack on ships for today's carrier battle groups. Their reason for being has to do with ocean escorting. Since there are no threat to ocean escorting, they are included with carrier battle groups. But not for long, the US Navy wants out of the frigate business. I agree, the MK13 provided limited utility and sucked up big bucks. The US Navy has plenty of VLS cells on their Aegis cruisers and destroyers tasked to escort carriers. But the Mk 13 Perrys had much more area air defense than RAMs of the LCS useful for ocean escorting convoys, in low air threat areas.
Every Aegis cruiser, and around half of the Aegis destroyers, along with the carriers themselves, carry ASW helicopters. All of the escorts carry Mk 32 ASW torpedoes tubes. Do all the ships need to be armed with everything? The LCS slated for the ocean escorting role, think convoys not carriers, will carry the containers for ASW. Those used for mine hunting will carry containers for that role. All of the LCSs will have RAM self defense air missiles. All of the LCSs will have a helicopter hangar.
The US Navy wants LCS. Why do so many not want LCS? Does a frigate escorting convoys in low threat areas need any missile better than RAM? Yes, I do know ESSMs and SM-2s have much more range than RAM.
People want to build up the number of ships in the fleet. I offer a $400 million LCS, which many think will be at least $50 million cheaper when bought in numbers. Yet, they want nothing less than a Burke. Sorry, Burkes cost $2 billion, and we already have enough of them to escort our carriers and amphibious task forces.
Last edited:
Cheap general purpose Frigates suitable for general patrol, anti-piracy, anti-drug ops, boardings and inspectios and general escort duties. Basically a modern day OHP.
I'm opposed to DDG-1000, the mission is silly (it hasn't been filled for a long time so why now?), the hull shape is controversial, it will have too few crew to stand a decent in port duty section rotation and the cost just keeps going up and up.
Agree for the most part, the hull is designed for high speed over everything else and I've seen more than one article that has stated that low and medium speed handling and range suffered to get that extra, mostly useless speed.
The Coasties have their own requirements and if they can be met using a USN design great, if not, oh well.
Agree as well, putting Marine squadrons on CVN's was a stupid way for Rumsfield to save money by decomming a few Navy squadrons.
No, the SM-1's were approaching their end of life and it would of cost too much to upgrade them to SM-2 (the launcher would have to be adapted, a whole new combat system and air search radar and FCS would have to be installed) vs how much useful life they still have in USN service and what missions they fill right now (VBSS, general patrol and anti-drug ops). By removing the launchers they were able to save a bit of money on equipment that barely got used and were able to cut several personnel from those ships and send them to more useful ones.
The Super Hornet actually does the tanker role better than the Viking, with a buddy pod and 4 drop tanks it can give more fuel than a Viking.
That's not it, LCS (and DDG-1000) are 2 of Rummies pet projects and have suffered from very bad cost overruns (some of it due to the USN's changing requirements and building specs in the middle of production) and the design itself is pretty controversial. The high speed sprint is more useless than people thing, especially if you are doing anti-mine or ASW warfare, and the design compromises needed to get that high speed performance sacrifice low and medium speed performance where it will spend most of its time.