In all seriousness I'm just glad they didn't name the vessel after a politician/activist/Jane Fonda.
-
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
USS America Comissioned
- Thread starter SynixMan
- Start date
No, we all saw it...and having two big-deck "amphibs" (at $3,400,000,000 a piece), with no well decks is still a big, big f'ing deal.
You'll see.
Actually, I think you're probably right...we'll see.
I THINK the "calculus at the time" of the AMERICA-class design decisions may have revolved around the expected capabilities of an all-Osprey troop/medium lift air element, supported by STOVL fixed wing, and the whole array of "skids" of course. The thinking being to go "well beyond the beach line". Anything in the well deck only goes to the beach...yes?
Not my swim lane...just posted for discussion among you guys who know better about current AMPHIB thinking.
During Desert Storm, TR and her battlegroup left Norfolk at the same time. TR and her nuke powered cruiser escort arrived in theater a week ahead of the rest of the battle group.
MasterBates
Well-Known Member
Yep. You know, the quoted annual operation costs when they decided to can the CGNs was $40M a year vs $28M for a Tico.
I wonder with todays fuel prices, if the CGNs are now cheaper (assuming they stayed in service) and what the total lifecycle cost compared to a new Burke is.
I wonder with todays fuel prices, if the CGNs are now cheaper (assuming they stayed in service) and what the total lifecycle cost compared to a new Burke is.
Harrier Dude
Living the dream
One of the best operational uses I've seen of it was on BATAAN in '03. The small decks did UNREP for all of our resupply, primarily ordnance, and the LCACs brought it over to us. That way we never had to waste deck day with VERTREP.
phrogpilot73
Well-Known Member
Nope. You are correct that LCUs and LCACs only goes to the beach. Amtracs also go beyond the beach line. LAVs go beyond the beach line. HMMWVs go beyond the beach line. Truth be told, the Amtracs generally aren't on the big deck amphib, but LAVs and shit tons of HMMWVs and 7-tons are on the big deck. It takes a long ass time to external all of that ashore. Or, you can cube out a couple of LCACs and it takes less time. Throw a pax container on the LCAC and you can get the whole battalion ashore in what would take 6 or so waves of air lift.
Again, I think it was incredibly short sighted. Which is probably why the follow on ships have a well deck. The "Oh shit, we do need it!" moment should have come much, much earlier.
I'm sure you're right...somebody wishes they could have a "do-over" on the design decision.
phrogpilot73
Well-Known Member
1. Not a whole lot of independent steaming in the Amphib world.
2. In order to make up for the well deck, you'd have to deploy with more than the current construct (1 x LHA/LHD, 1 x LSD, 1 x LPD), which would make for a whole lot of hate and discontent on the waterfront. It's not like LPDs/LSDs grow on trees...
Timely resurrection. Attended at Brooking presentation on Defense Budgets, apparently an endogenous study as no one else wanted to take any credit. A lot of talk about the death of the colossi that is CVN, but not much talk of horses and bayonets. Some suggestions of slowing down construction of hull #78 and outright cancellation of hull #79 and #80. It was acknowledged that the $14 Billion for #78 was over 50% sunk costs and maybe not a mountain of savings to be had. But ...
Folks seem to think, sounded much like USAF, that the F-35 Charlie variant was unnecessary if we moved to smaller boats. The EW mission was surfaced but it was waved off. The thinking was clearly small deck; early phase out of he older CVN's as a cost savings. Foreseeable future seemed to indicate the requirement for 6 large deck carriers. Forseeable future?? I do not understand what part of the future is foreseeable.
The slogan of the day seemed to be "Smaller footprints better meets the current day threats"
Just sayin'
Folks seem to think, sounded much like USAF, that the F-35 Charlie variant was unnecessary if we moved to smaller boats. The EW mission was surfaced but it was waved off. The thinking was clearly small deck; early phase out of he older CVN's as a cost savings. Foreseeable future seemed to indicate the requirement for 6 large deck carriers. Forseeable future?? I do not understand what part of the future is foreseeable.
The slogan of the day seemed to be "Smaller footprints better meets the current day threats"
Just sayin'
When the fuck has the CINC ever said "man, I really wish we had less military might standing by at ---insert hotspot du jour---" when the shit hit the fan?
What no talent ass clown beltway dipshit thought that turd nugget of a gem up?
The list is too long to post here, it would require way too much server space.
Timely resurrection. Attended at Brooking presentation on Defense Budgets......Folks seem to think, sounded much like USAF, that the F-35 Charlie variant was unnecessary if we moved to smaller boats......The thinking was clearly small deck; early phase out of he older CVN's as a cost savings. Foreseeable future seemed to indicate the requirement for 6 large deck carriers. Forseeable future?? I do not understand what part of the future is foreseeable.
Just sayin'
Seems to be the 70's and the Sea Control Ship all over again.
Meh... why go through all that trouble when we could just go to an all-arsenal ship fleet, a really really simple naval strategy, and hope everything work out?
