US Navy News and updates

the concerned said:
I am sure they can wait for a replacement ship. If not another option would be bring the Kitty hawk out of retirement .
Click to expand...
If they were going to modernise and recommission a Ship, two of the Tarawa’s, Nassau and Pelielu are still in the reserve fleet and would be far better options then a 100,000 Carrier which has actually been struck and it would be doubtful it could be modernised.
Even then they are 40yo and the cost of a modernisation would be huge.
 
Last edited:
Last I read Kitty Hawk was sadly destined to the scrap heap. In no condition for refurbish.
Last year there was a push to offer the Nassau to Japan nothing came of it. I think she is still in reserve able to be called to duty if needed. Same for the Peleliu though if such happed I doubt it would be the long term option. Neither was fitted for F35B so they would both end up as helicopter platforms if needed.
 
I imagine they will just keep Wasp around a bit longer. Shes already been upgraded. She would have been up for decommissioning in 2025? Maybe push that out to 2030. I imagine its a bit easier to keep a ship in service for a bit longer than trying to bring one back than one that has been decommissioned 5 years ago.

So really thats just a gap of 5 years. Quite a few allied platforms they could embark detachments on.
 
Seems reasonable. Plus, perhaps they could try to speed up the building of the America class. One's building now - Bougainville. Maybe lay down the next one earlier than planned. Long lead items for it are on order already, ordered before LHA-6 burned
 
They may not even have to speed construction much. The wonderful thing about the way the US does things is they always have a new ship coming down the line. They just build another ship at the end. They already ordered long lead items for LHA-9 in may 2020, long before the fire. Bougainville is LHA-8. Also a lot of the pull out items from B.R. With such a large fleet, and ships already in the pipeline they might be able to narrow that 5 year gap even more through planning and shuffling.

Bougainville is expected to enter in 2024, but that seems a long way into the future for a build of an existing class (although further modifications for F-35b were made), BR was built in 3 years. They may be able to beat that 2024 date, they could already be on track to beat that, historically they get faster with each ship they build of a type. Which again further closes that gap. With that kind of gap, it doesn't seem particularly worthwhile to reactivate. As mentioned in the reports, reactivation or repair, would significantly tie up existing yard capacity.

But with delays on carriers, and now this. Now might be a good time for allies to step up. I'm sure both the Navy and the American administration are all ears in regards to any offers regarding detachments, training, deployments etc. Particularly in the IndoPacific.
 
swerve said:
Basic design was done with F-35B in mind, but IIRC (don't hold me to it, though - I'm not completely sure) some work would still be needed. Deck heat treatment? Deck strengthening? I can't remember.
Click to expand...
My understanding is they are identical to JC1 below the flight deck when built. I understand the JC1 was built with F35 in mind. It appears it is the CONOPS based on current strategy that means F35Bs are unlikely (combined with the fact they can only support a small number of aircraft and this would detract from the Amphib role)
 
Feanor said:
Not sure if anyone else is looking at that, it's a plan for future US naval structure and includes an impressive number of unmanned submersiles. It also includes an impressive number of aircraft carriers.

Click to expand...
Interesting read.
If the numbers are correct then the USN will have one less carrier by 2049 than it has now, even with the seven new builds.
Realistically, finances may prohibit even that being attainable
MB
 
A new piece I stumbled upon from CSBA regarding the USN's future fleet:


Among the recommendations are:

1.) An emphasis on medium range air defence systems like ESSM Blk II for fleet defence, with more capable interceptors reserved for higher value targets like enemy aircraft, high end ASCMs and enemy vessels.

1.jpg

2.) Shifting emphasis from CSGs to major surface combatants for providing ASuW and strike capabilities, and using MUSVs as both distributed sensors and decoys to draw enemy anti-shipping missiles away from genuine SAGs and CSGs.

2.jpg

An interesting read, with plenty more detail in the PDF itself.
 
Interesting, but remember CSBA is a private think tank: Our Mission | CSBA so they are proselytising rather reflecting actual policy. Like others of their type (and I don’t think that they really live up to their claims of being the “world’s premier centre for understanding future conflict”, that’s probably ISS) they will probably be one of the inputs into policy developments. But’s again like others of their type, they will push particular barrows. Still, interesting.

if I’m reading it right, their plans would call for a near 1000 ship Navy (p 93 et seq), of which admittedly a large number would be uninhabited. I’m not sure what that says about how real world they are.....

Anyone know much about the authors? - they both now work for the Hudson Institute but their bios there, Walton’s in particular, are pretty generic.
 
Last edited:
spoz said:
Interesting, but remember CSBA is a private think tank: Our Mission | CSBA so they are proselytising rather reflecting actual policy. Like others of their type (and I don’t think that they really live up to their claims of being the “world’s premier centre for understanding future conflict”, that’s probably ISS) they will probably be one of the inputs into policy developments. But’s again like others of their type, they will push particular barrows. Still, interesting. Anyone know much about the authors? - they both now work for the Hudson Institute but their bios there, Walton’s in particular, are pretty generic.
Click to expand...

Bryan Clark is fairly well known, but his operational background is as a submariner.

I take issue with parts of #1 - The general concept of what is being put forth is actually pretty appealing (reserve exquisite weapons for exquisite problems, increase mag depth for inner zone weapons), but I take issue with the mismatch between what they call for in the 10-30nm inner zone and the actual performance of weapons systems that fight in that space. The only real world system there is ESSM, and everything else is a science project. Also, ESSM is not exactly a cheap round either.
So...like the idea, but think we have a ways to go to get there.

I absolutely adore #2 in concept, but think it needs some wargaming to flesh out what it could theoretically deliver in more concrete terms.
 
Aster 30 covers that range, & more. Barak 8, too. Both in service, Aster 30 in several navies since the 2000s.

What you say is true only for currently operational USN SAMs, ignoring longer-range SAMs which cover that range as part of their operational envelope.
 
swerve said:
Aster 30 covers that range, & more. Barak 8, too. Both in service, Aster 30 in several navies since the 2000s.

What you say is true only for currently operational USN SAMs, ignoring longer-range SAMs which cover that range as part of their operational envelope.
Click to expand...

The study and graphic deliberately excludes SM2/6 class weapons for a reason, and Aster 30 is very much in that class. They are very big missiles that take up between most and all of a VLS cell's length.

Aster 15 or CAMM would be a better comparison, and neither really advertises substantially better performance than ESSM. Neither can quad pack, but if anything, CAMM would probably be the better of the two.

Barak 8 is a bit of an outlier that falls in between ESSM and SM2 performance and size, but if it can't quad pack into a MK41 launcher, it's not really relevant other than to prove the general idea of a "hybrid" to achieve that performance. Which isn't surprising, and you could in theory tune ESSM to something similar if you could make it longer without making it wider and without compromising its close in, fast, high G performance.

Like I said a bit of work to get there, though more mature than "science project" territory.
All the other stuff on that graphic though like HVPs and HPMs? Definitely still science projects.
 
Camm can quad pack. Tested, demonstrated, & ready for buyers.

CAMM completes qualification trials from 3-cell ExLS launcher - MBDA

But note that it's a waste of an expensive, heavy, & bulky Mk 41 launcher. It doesn't need the efflux control, & can be launched from smaller, lighter, cheaper stand-alone launchers. If you wanted to carry CAMM as a standard part of a missile load, it'd be better to fit some CAMM-only launchers & save the Mk 41s for things that needed them. It's only worth putting them in Mk 41 if they're only carried sometimes - & that's not very likely. If you always have some of your Mk 41s full of CAMM, you're wasting weight, money & maintenance effort.

Flexibliity is useful when there's a significant chance of needing it. It's not an end in itself.
 
swerve said:
Camm can quad pack. Tested, demonstrated, & ready for buyers.

CAMM completes qualification trials from 3-cell ExLS launcher - MBDA

But note that it's a waste of an expensive, heavy, & bulky Mk 41 launcher. It doesn't need the efflux control, & can be launched from smaller, lighter, cheaper stand-alone launchers. If you wanted to carry CAMM as a standard part of a missile load, it'd be better to fit some CAMM-only launchers & save the Mk 41s for things that needed them. It's only worth putting them in Mk 41 if they're only carried sometimes - & that's not very likely. If you always have some of your Mk 41s full of CAMM, you're wasting weight, money & maintenance effort.

Flexibliity is useful when there's a significant chance of needing it. It's not an end in itself.
Click to expand...

In theory perhaps.

In the context of a thread with the last several posts on a study on development of a USN fleet architect where every ship already has large farms of VLS cells and quad pack of ESSM is occurring daily, largely irrelevant.

Same goes for CAMM quad pack as a tested “not fitted capability.”
Possibly relevant to a Navy looking for size constrained self defense AAW solutions, maybe for future USVs that might be more size constrained, but otherwise largely irrelevant for the USN.

Do you have anything to add regarding the study?
 
swerve said:
Camm can quad pack. Tested, demonstrated, & ready for buyers.

CAMM completes qualification trials from 3-cell ExLS launcher - MBDA

But note that it's a waste of an expensive, heavy, & bulky Mk 41 launcher. It doesn't need the efflux control, & can be launched from smaller, lighter, cheaper stand-alone launchers. If you wanted to carry CAMM as a standard part of a missile load, it'd be better to fit some CAMM-only launchers & save the Mk 41s for things that needed them. It's only worth putting them in Mk 41 if they're only carried sometimes - & that's not very likely. If you always have some of your Mk 41s full of CAMM, you're wasting weight, money & maintenance effort.

Flexibliity is useful when there's a significant chance of needing it. It's not an end in itself.
Click to expand...


Indeed - and I believe NZ deleted their Mk41 cells when they switched to SeaCeptor rather than go the quad pack route. SeaCeptor is an interesting weapon given it's rather more carefree requirements for siting.
 
StobieWan said:
Indeed - and I believe NZ deleted their Mk41 cells when they switched to SeaCeptor rather than go the quad pack route. SeaCeptor is an interesting weapon given it's rather more carefree requirements for siting.
Click to expand...
But, and this is a big but, it requires dedicated real estate which, unlike Mk 41, can’t be used for anything else. So if you want the flexibility to vary your missile load according to mission stick with Mk 41. CAMM then needs to compete with other topside requirements for space, so it is in a different trade off space where it starts to be lined up against CIWS and soft kill systems.

individual Navies will make different choices in that situation but the USN, with an equally (or more) capable missile in ESSM Block 2 is unlikely to go there. RAM maybe, but CAMM doesn’t seem in any way likely - and that would also be the situation for most othe Navies with a decent number of Mk41 tubes - noting of course that the RCN looks like being the exception.....

The RN (who don’t have lots of Mk 41) seems to be getting itself into something of a muddle with Mk 41, CAMM AND Sylver all in, or being introduced to service. Presumably that will all rationalise idc, but at the moment to this independent observer it just seems strange.

NZ replaced Mk41 Tactical (which can basically only load ESSM) with CAMM in ANZACs. That makes a degree of sense when timing and available margins are taken into account, if you don’t go down the RAN ASMD route.
 
Last edited:
"Dedicated real estate which can't be used for anything else" is both normal & perfectly acceptable for things which you need to have aboard or which you intend to always carry. Frigates & destroyers usually have a permanently fitted gun at the pointy end, for example.

Putting things in multi-purpose launchers is a good idea when you consider them to be optional. When you think they're not optional, it's only worthwhile when the multi-purpose launcher doesn't cost a lot more (in money or anything else) than other ways of carrying them. It's like the gun: would it be a good idea to have a main gun in a big container which could be lifted out & replaced by another one, containing a different gun, or missile launchers? It's more flexible, & stops you having "dedicated real estate which can't be used for anything else", but is it worth the cost, complexity, etc.? How often will you want to swap out the main gun & fit something else? What about alternative engines? You could have podded GTs, diesels, etc. & big hatches to remove them through, so when you don't want to go flat out you could take out an engine & use the space for something else. Good idea?

You see what I mean. There's a cost to flexibility. It can be worth paying, but not always.
 
@spoz I believe that the RNZN Mk-41 were the self defence variant, not the tactical variant so will have been a shorter length than the tactical length variant.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top