• Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?

    Go here:

    Edit Account Details and Profile

Proceedings - Buy Ford, not Ferrari

CDR Hendrix proposes forming sixteen "influence squadrons" built around an LPD, DDG, LCS, JHSV, and M80 Stiletto as the forward line of US naval presence, with the ESG's and Carriers (the "ferrari" in this analogy") in reserve as a surge force.
Click to expand...

Sounds a lot like the high-low mix from Adm Zumwalt circa 1970's, with a renaming of the "Sea-Control Ship" concept.

Nothing, and I mean nothing says "presence" like a CVN. They are uniquely American and everyone in the world is envious of our CVN arsenal.
The reality is nothing can bring sustained combat firepower on par with a CVN.

The navy tried this with SAG's with the BB's in the 80's with limited success. We should reflect on the Brits who, after decades with the Invincibles, have opted for a more traditional carrier with 30-40 aircraft capability.

Take a naval layman and put a Burke, a Kondo, a Lafayette, a Bremen, and a Nimitz boat in form and tell me which one says presence.
 
Hozer said:
Sounds a lot like the high-low mix from Adm Zumwalt circa 1970's, with a renaming of the "Sea-Control Ship" concept.

Nothing, and I mean nothing says "presence" like a CVN. They are uniquely American and everyone in the world is envious of our CVN arsenal.
The reality is nothing can bring sustained combat firepower on par with a CVN.

The navy tried this with SAG's with the BB's in the 80's with limited success. We should reflect on the Brits who, after decades with the Invincibles, have opted for a more traditional carrier with 30-40 aircraft capability.

Take a naval layman and put a Burke, a Kondo, a Lafayette, a Bremen, and a Nimitz boat in form and tell me which one says presence.
Click to expand...

Well, it's a matter of what you mean by presence - warheads or personnel. Only an industrialized nation's going to notice or care that you''re parked offshore with the ability to bomb willy-nilly. These ships can put a company-size element ashore and patrol the coastline. For conventional ops, sure, bigger carries economy of scale, but the point of this is for the lower end of the conflict where a CVN or even a LHD is overkill and the flexibility of more but smaller platforms is preferable.
 
Got it.

Flexibility. Scalability. Economy of scale.

At what price point does a DDG 1000 or even the LCS at $2.5 billion each become attractive despite the fact that they can't provide their own air defense in the littorals because they lack the right sensors? (As currently planned, USNI article Feb 2009).

My point is that these vessels are the wrong type of "low".

Give me 150 steel Oliver Hazard Perry's with 5", 2 60R's, DBR, and VLS.
 
These groups, as proposed, has at their heart a DDG (-51, I presume) providing warheads and sensors for force protection from surface and aerial threats and a LPD to provide the boots. The LCS isn't designed to be self-protecting, it's a modular platform for mission packages, and the bloat and mission creep of the DDG-1000 are separate matters entirely.
 
Are the JHSV or LPD self-protecting? Does an Abrams have anti-air capabilities? Combined arms means we utilize complementing platforms, not cram them all into one. Granted, some redundancy would be nice (though as proposed, this group will heavily utilize UAV's for sensor coverage), but these are not designed to be surface combatant groups. The greatest threat to these ships are cruise missiles from shore, not industrialized air forces.
 
Are the JHSV or LPD self-protecting?
Click to expand...

Exactly. Why make a ship that has to depend on another for it's basic survival. Is that cheaper? Because you think that ship will be able to get away with operating someplace where it won't encounter unexpected threats? Is that really the long-term smart way to plan a ship that has an operational life expectancy of 20-30 years minimum?

The greatest threat to these ships are cruise missiles from shore, not industrialized air forces.
Click to expand...

Maybe right now. What about 10, 15, or 20 years from now?

The Navy needs Jack-of-all trades combat hulls now. Modular weapons systems swaps to mission reconfigure are baloney. Where are those swaps going to take place? How long?


End rant//BT
 
Hozer said:
Got it.

Flexibility. Scalability. Economy of scale.

At what price point does a DDG 1000 or even the LCS at $2.5 billion each become attractive despite the fact that they can't provide their own air defense in the littorals because they lack the right sensors? (As currently planned, USNI article Feb 2009).

My point is that these vessels are the wrong type of "low".

Give me 150 steel Oliver Hazard Perry's with 5", 2 60R's, DBR, and VLS.
Click to expand...

http://blog.usni.org/?p=1205

Where did you read/hear DDG 1000 is incapable of littoral air defense?

LCS not doing AAW is a given, but it's not designed for AAW.
It's great against the littoral FIAC threat with shallower draft/40+ knot/waterjet maneuverability making it far more maneuverable than our other surface combatants. The 57mm gun + NLOS if it works gives it enough firepower to engage a FAC/FIAC swarm, and it has helo capability.

The mission module is to provide MIW/littoral ASW capability. The former is something pretty much non-existent right now unless you want to hold everything up for a few weeks until the minesweeps arrive, and FFGs are the best littoral ASW platforms we currently have.
 
Hozer said:
Why build a ship that isn't?
Click to expand...

mmx1 said:
Are the JHSV or LPD self-protecting? Does an Abrams have anti-air capabilities? Combined arms means we utilize complementing platforms, not cram them all into one. Granted, some redundancy would be nice (though as proposed, this group will heavily utilize UAV's for sensor coverage), but these are not designed to be surface combatant groups. The greatest threat to these ships are cruise missiles from shore, not industrialized air forces.
Click to expand...

Hozer is dead on. Surface combatants are not like a tank or even a LPD. The LCS will be called upon to do independent ops in combat zones and yet we only give it last ditch defense weapons and a helo deck. Why don't you ask the Israelis how well their similarly equipped Saar V corvette fared off Lebanon in 2006. Gators serve a purpose but it is not as a regular combatant.

Every combatant ship in the Navy should be a self-sufficient weapon system, not reliant on other ships to protect it. Because no matter what is intended they will operate alone and unafraid, intentions or not. A few dinky little UAV's carrying tiny little rockets aren't going to do anything but show the 9 small speedboats with ASCM's heading for the ship, outside the range of its weapon systems, and the LCS ain't going to be able to do anything watch and wait for the 30-odd missiles heading for it. At that point, just bend over and kiss your ass goodbye.
 
Hozer said:
Why build a ship that isn't?


Timely quote from the ex-Skipper of the USS Cole regarding the number of hulls, or lack thereof...

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090408/D97EJ4S81.html
Click to expand...

That seems like it goes AGAINST your argument. More, cheaper, less capable platforms would mean more assets deployed and available for tasking.

With a proper high-low mix, you can free up the high end units for tasking only they can do.

IMO, why not identify what the critical mission areas will be on both the high and low ends, then figure out what the projected use will be. Let's face it, BMD requires an asset totally different from anti piracy or OPLAT defense.
 
Flash said:
Hozer is dead on. Surface combatants are not like a tank or even a LPD. The LCS will be called upon to do independent ops in combat zones and yet we only give it last ditch defense weapons and a helo deck. Why don't you ask the Israelis how well their similarly equipped Saar V corvette fared off Lebanon in 2006. Gators serve a purpose but it is not as a regular combatant.

Every combatant ship in the Navy should be a self-sufficient weapon system, not reliant on other ships to protect it. Because no matter what is intended they will operate alone and unafraid, intentions or not. A few dinky little UAV's carrying tiny little rockets aren't going to do anything but show the 9 small speedboats with ASCM's heading for the ship, outside the range of its weapon systems, and the LCS ain't going to be able to do anything watch and wait for the 30-odd missiles heading for it. At that point, just bend over and kiss your ass goodbye.
Click to expand...

I'm sure you are privy to info I don't have on the incident, but publicly, Israel alleged the Hanit's air defense systems were not turned on and fully ready due to friendly aircraft and no expectation of a ASCM threat. There was apparently also a communications breakdown between intel and the fleet, as the intel on Hezbollah possession of ASCMs did not translate to a warning to the fleet, which would have caused them to move out of visual range and increase threat warning/weapons posture.

If this is in fact true, even an AEGIS ship wouldn't have done better in that situation. Seems to me bad shipboard intel was the culprit, not the ship itself.

Frankly, I see no reason a stealthy platform like LCS not operating in visual range of the coastline would be an easy target for coastal ASCMs, or even FAC/FIAC boats.

The 9 speedboat scenario is too simplistic as well. What is ROE? Can the LCS simply turn and haul ass? It goes 40+ knots with blue water capability, it can ditch FIAC boats, and FAC boats would have a difficult time tracking it out in blue water.
And why would a lone LCS operate where we expect a high ASCM/ASUW torpedo threat? Do we send unescorted F/A-18 strikers into a highly sophisticated IADS?
 
BigRed, you are trying to use logic where the Navy in general and SWOdom in particular are involved. And that's leaving the politicians out of the equation.

Ships need to be able to self defend, or have a defense ship tied to it at the hip at all times (Like CVN/Shotgun CG)
 
I don't really understand this guy's "Influence Package." Whizz-bang ships aside, I don't really get what it's supposed to do. As I read some of its missions I said that's what an ESG is for, and then he went on to talk about how good ESGs are. So how bout let's leave the CSGs the hell alone. Get rid of one or two if you want, and bump up amphibious shipping if you want, but don't screw with the employment too much. The wheel does not need to be reinvented even in the 4th generation warfare environment.
 
usmarinemike said:
I don't really understand this guy's "Influence Package." Whizz-bang ships aside, I don't really get what it's supposed to do. As I read some of its missions I said that's what an ESG is for, and then he went on to talk about how good ESGs are. So how bout let's leave the CSGs the hell alone. Get rid of one or two if you want, and bump up amphibious shipping if you want, but don't screw with the employment too much. The wheel does not need to be reinvented even in the 4th generation warfare environment.
Click to expand...

I think he's saying that the LPD/LSDs do what MEUs usually do, i.e. do exercises with foreign militaries, standby for embassy reins, NEOS, disaster relief, etc., while the LHA/LHDs standby ready for the big stuff, to "surge" as he would have the carriers do.

In one sense, it mirrors the idea for what I think are supposed to be called "security cooperation SPMAGTFs," where regular MEUs are supplanted in order to have units specialize in regions and provide them training and such.

On the other, the gap in capability between an LHD/LHA and an LSD/LPDs is huge. As an example, it would be a long-ass mission, trying to evacuate a country with the 2 helo spots on an LPD and the surface means in the well deck, whether that's an LCAC or AAVs.

It's not a crazy idea, but it would mean scaling back our ability to immediately respond to events.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top